Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo: Rape, Outrage of Modesty, Digital Penetration, Prosecution's Duty of Disclosure

In [2020] SGCA 56, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals related to Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo. Dr. Wee, a medical practitioner, was initially charged with rape and outrage of modesty. The High Court convicted him of outrage of modesty and sexual assault by digital penetration but acquitted him of rape. Both the prosecution and Dr. Wee appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution's appeal against the acquittal for rape, acquitted Dr. Wee of the outrage of modesty charge, and overturned his conviction for sexual assault by digital penetration, citing reasonable doubt and issues with the prosecution's duty of disclosure.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Medical practitioner Wee Teong Boo faced rape and outrage of modesty charges. The Court of Appeal acquitted him, citing reasonable doubt and disclosure issues.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellant, RespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal dismissed in partPartial
Sarah Siaw of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chew Xin Ying of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Lit Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Wee Teong BooRespondent, Appellant, ApplicantIndividualConvictions overturnedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sarah SiawAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chew Xin YingAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Lit ChengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chooi Jing YenEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Eugene Singarajah ThuraisingamEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Johannes HadiEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Syazana Binte YahyaEugene Thuraisingam LLP

4. Facts

  1. Dr. Wee was a medical practitioner charged with rape and outrage of modesty against his patient, V.
  2. V claimed Dr. Wee stroked her vagina with his fingers during a consultation on 25 November 2015.
  3. V alleged Dr. Wee penetrated her vagina with his penis without consent on 30 December 2015.
  4. Dr. Wee denied the offences, claiming he conducted a routine examination and a pelvic examination with consent.
  5. The High Court convicted Dr. Wee of outrage of modesty and sexual assault by digital penetration but acquitted him of rape.
  6. Dr. Wee appealed against his convictions, and the Prosecution appealed against his acquittal on the rape charge.
  7. The Prosecution delayed disclosing a medical report and the Polyclinic Record to the Defence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo, Criminal Appeals No 15 and 16 of 2019 and Criminal Motion No 2 of 2020, [2020] SGCA 56

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Dr. Wee allegedly outraged V's modesty.
V visited a polyclinic to check a lump in her groin area.
Dr. Wee allegedly raped V.
V filed a police report.
Dr. Wee was arrested.
Dr. Wee gave a further statement to the police.
Dr. Wee underwent a doppler ultrasonography.
Dr. Gan prepared the First Doppler Report.
Dr. Tung issued a report on V's examination.
Dr. Wee gave a cautioned statement.
Dr. Lim issued a medical report.
Dr. Wee saw Dr. Teo.
Dr. Wee underwent a second penile doppler ultrasonography.
Dr. Wee gave Further Statement to police
Dr. Wee gave Cautioned Statement
Prosecution obtained the Polyclinic Record.
Prosecution disclosed the Polyclinic Record to the Defence.
Dr. Wee underwent a haemodynamic test for erectile function.
Prosecution disclosed the Second Doppler Report to Dr. Wee.
High Court decision in Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo [2019] SGHC 198.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Rape
    • Outcome: The court found there was reasonable doubt as to whether Dr. Wee could have penetrated V’s vagina with his penis without any external assistance.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Outrage of Modesty
    • Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the charges that were brought against him.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Sexual Assault by Digital Penetration
    • Outcome: The court found that the Judge had erred in law in convicting Dr. Wee of the Digital Penetration Offence.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Duty of Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution’s delayed disclosure of the Second Doppler Report did prejudice Dr. Wee.
    • Category: Procedural
  5. Conviction on Unframed Charge
    • Outcome: The court found that the Judge had erred in law in convicting Dr. Wee of the Digital Penetration Offence.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against acquittal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rape
  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Sexual Assault by Digital Penetration

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 25SingaporeReiterated the Prosecution’s duty of fairness and disclosure of evidence material to the defence.
Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong BooHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 198SingaporeThe High Court's decision that was appealed against in this case.
Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd HassanCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 490SingaporeCited for the principle that the Prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, even when the victim's testimony is uncorroborated.
Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 2SingaporeCited for the application of the 'unusually convincing' standard to the evidence of an eyewitness.
Kwan Peng Hong v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 824SingaporeCited for the meaning of 'unusually convincing' evidence.
AOF v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must comb through the evidence in the light of the internal and external consistencies found in the witness’ testimony.
XP v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 686SingaporeCited for the principle that the finding that a complainant’s testimony is unusually convincing does not automatically entail a guilty verdict.
Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger JrHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 749SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no prescribed way in which victims of sexual assault are expected to act.
Yue Roger Jr v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 829SingaporeAffirmed the decision in Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr [2019] 3 SLR 749.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 1205SingaporeCited for the Prosecution's duty to disclose promptly to the Defence any unused material that is likely to be admissible and that might reasonably be regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused person.
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court remains entitled to ascertain whether the Judge’s assessment of V’s credibility was plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence.
Rex v Tay Thye JooUnknownYes[1993] MLJ 35MalaysiaDiscussed in relation to the interpretation of Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Lew Cheok Hin v ReginaUnknownYes[1956] 00 SLR 59SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the interpretation of Sections 138 and 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Garmaz s/o Pakhar v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 453SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the interpretation of Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Goh Gek Seng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 952SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the interpretation of Sections 138 and 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Jatinder Kumar & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn) DelhiDelhi High CourtYes[1992] CRI LJ 1482IndiaDiscussed in relation to the interpretation of Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Santosh Kudtarkar vs State and othersBombay High CourtYes[2016] GOA 142IndiaDiscussed in relation to the interpretation of Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Shamnsaheb M.Multtani vs State of KarnatakaSupreme Court of IndiaYes[2001] 1 MLJ (Crl) 422IndiaDiscussed in relation to the interpretation of Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
DT v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 583SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should examine the explanations proffered by the complainant for a delay in reporting to determine whether this adversely impacts her credibility.
Public Prosecutor v Koon Seng Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the principle that a conviction on an unframed charge must not cause any injustice, and it must not affect the presentation of the evidence in connection with the defence of the accused person had the unframed charge been framed in the first place.
Lim Chuan Huat and another v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the principle that the accused is not overwhelmed by having to defend several unconnected charges.
Mui Jia Jun v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 2 SLR 1087SingaporeCited for the principle that the charge must convey to the prisoner with sufficient clearness and certainty that which the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he will have to clear himself.
Jagar Singh v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1936] MLJ 92MalaysiaCited for the principle that the charge must convey to the prisoner with sufficient clearness and certainty that which the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he will have to clear himself.
R v Mohamed Humayoon ShahUnknownYes[1874] 21 WR Cr 72UnknownCited for the principle that the charge must convey to the prisoner with sufficient clearness and certainty that which the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he will have to clear himself.
Soh Guan Cheow Anthony v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 3 SLR 147SingaporeCited for the principle that the Prosecution remains entitled to internally assess and evaluate the unused material in its possession before disclosing it to the Defence or the court.
R v BanksUnknownYes[1916] 2 KB 621United KingdomCited for the principle that Prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors. They are “ministers of justice” assisting in the administration of justice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 354(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 375(1)(a) of the Penal CodeSingapore
s 375(2) of the Penal CodeSingapore
s 376(2)(a) of the Penal CodeSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 325(1)(b) of the CPCSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Erectile dysfunction
  • Digital penetration
  • Outrage of modesty
  • Rape
  • Duty of disclosure
  • Unframed charge
  • Pelvic inflammatory disease
  • Penile penetration

15.2 Keywords

  • Rape
  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Digital Penetration
  • Erectile Dysfunction
  • Disclosure
  • Criminal Law
  • Singapore
  • Medical Practitioner

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sexual Offences95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure85
Evidence Law70
Disclosure of Evidence60
Administrative Law10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Evidence