Public Prosecutor v CEO: Abetment by Conspiracy to Commit Rape; Penal Code s 375
In Public Prosecutor v CEO, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case against CEO, who was charged with abetment by conspiracy with T to commit rape under s 375(1)(a), read with s 109 of the Penal Code. The Prosecution argued that CEO and T had an agreement for CEO to rape T's wife, V, while she was unconscious. CEO claimed he went to T's apartment out of concern for V. The court found the Prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted CEO, sentencing him to 13 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Conviction for abetment by conspiracy to commit rape; sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
CEO was convicted of abetment by conspiracy to commit rape under s 375 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Lim Ying Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Wong Li-Jing Gail of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ang Siok Chen of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| CEO | Defendant | Individual | Conviction | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Ying Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wong Li-Jing Gail | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ang Siok Chen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Luo Ling Ling | Luo Ling Ling LLC |
| Joshua Ho Jin Le | Luo Ling Ling LLC |
| Chua Eng Hui | Luo Ling Ling LLC |
| Leong Zhen Yang | Luo Ling Ling LLC |
4. Facts
- Accused and T communicated online, discussing 'wife sharing' and the use of sleeping pills.
- T drugged his wife, V, with Dormicum on the night of the alleged rape.
- T invited the accused to his apartment, informing him that V was drugged.
- Accused went to T's apartment knowing V was drugged.
- Accused and T were in the master bedroom with V, who was unconscious.
- T testified he saw the accused on top of V in a missionary position.
- Accused brought a condom to T's apartment.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v CEO, Criminal Case No 26 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 109
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused created 'Wife Fantasy' thread on Sammyboy Forum | |
| Accused and V met at Sushi Tei restaurant and Goldkist Beach Resort | |
| T and V went for a staycation at Marina Bay Sands | |
| Accused visited T’s apartment | |
| Alleged rape occurred at T's apartment | |
| V lodged a police report | |
| Police arrested T | |
| Accused was arrested | |
| T pleaded guilty to six charges | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Abetment by Conspiracy to Commit Rape
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of abetment by conspiracy to commit rape.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment by Conspiracy to Commit Rape
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Er Joo Nguang and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 756 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proof of conspiracy may be founded on surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties. |
| Nomura Taiji v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 259 | Singapore | Cited for the mens rea requirement for abetment by conspiracy. |
| Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 610 | Singapore | Cited for the mens rea requirement for abetment by conspiracy. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'unusually convincing' standard applies when an eyewitness's evidence is uncorroborated. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 105 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'unusually convincing' standard applies when an eyewitness's evidence is uncorroborated. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'unusually convincing' standard applies when an eyewitness's evidence is uncorroborated. |
| Kwan Peng Hong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 824 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'unusually convincing' standard applies when an eyewitness's evidence is uncorroborated. |
| XP v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'unusually convincing' standard applies when an eyewitness's evidence is uncorroborated. |
| Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'unusually convincing' standard applies when an eyewitness's evidence is uncorroborated. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 749 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that corroborative evidence can obviate the need for the 'unusually convincing' standard. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yap Pow Foo | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 11 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that corroborative evidence can obviate the need for the 'unusually convincing' standard. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan En Jie Norvan | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 166 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that corroborative evidence can obviate the need for the 'unusually convincing' standard. |
| Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 123 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that corroborative evidence can obviate the need for the 'unusually convincing' standard. |
| Ng Kum Weng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 100 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that corroborative evidence can obviate the need for the 'unusually convincing' standard. |
| Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited regarding similar fact evidence. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited regarding the courts’ inherent power to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dinesh Pillai a/l Raja Retnam | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 95 | Singapore | Cited regarding the cogency of evidence. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework to be applied in the present case. |
| Chia Kim Heng Frederick v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 63 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that rape is the most grave of all sexual offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v BMD | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 235 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that penile-vaginal penetration warrants the heaviest of punishments. |
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that penile-vaginal penetration warrants the heaviest of punishments. |
| Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 68 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the primary sentencing considerations for the offence of rape should be retribution and the protection of the public. |
| Public Prosecutor v BVR | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 198 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the primary sentencing considerations for the offence of rape should be retribution and the protection of the public. |
| PP v Law Aik Meng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that offences committed by groups of persons are more serious. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Chee Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 876 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a sentencing court ought to have careful regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case in determining whether there was in existence a group element, and separately, whether that element was an aggravating factor. |
| Arumugam Selvaraj v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 881 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a group assault by two persons would be on the very edges of the meaning of the term group assault. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leong Soon Kheong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 63 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the law often does not benignly appraise the conduct of a passive participant in a group assault. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that when an individual actively engages in group violence, a proportionate sentence for each participant should include consideration of the net effect of that group violence. |
| Public Prosecutor v BSR | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 335 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the essence of the aggravating factor of a victim’s vulnerability is not that an offender has created or caused a victim’s vulnerability; it lies in the exploitation of that vulnerability. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Soon Heng | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 58 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the essence of the aggravating factor of a victim’s vulnerability is not that an offender has created or caused a victim’s vulnerability; it lies in the exploitation of that vulnerability. |
| Public Prosecutor v NF | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the violation of a safe sanctuary that a victim calls home attracts considerations of both retribution and deterrence. |
| Public Prosecutor v CEP | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 15 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the violation of a safe sanctuary that a victim calls home attracts considerations of both retribution and deterrence. |
| Public Prosecutor v CEJ | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 169 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the violation of a safe sanctuary that a victim calls home attracts considerations of both retribution and deterrence. |
| Zeng Guoyuan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 556 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused’s lack of remorse can constitute an aggravating factor. |
| Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 47 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an inference of lack of remorse should be slow to draw. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 93 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused’s lack of remorse can constitute an aggravating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Amir Hamzah Bin Mohammad | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 165 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused’s conduct in casting unjustified aspersions on the conduct of the police may be held to demonstrate a lack of remorse. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that mitigating weight will only be accorded to an accused’s personal circumstances if they are genuinely exceptional or extreme. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Cheng Ji Alvin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 671 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that charitable works by an accused cannot be regarded as mitigating on some form of social accounting. |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 755 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that charitable works by an accused cannot be regarded as mitigating on some form of social accounting. |
| Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 580 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a lack of antecedents is a neutral factor and not a mitigating one. |
| Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 1220 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of detailed reasons for the sentence imposed in that case made it difficult to draw any useful comparison to the present case. |
| Toh Suat Leng Jennifer v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 1075 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of detailed reasons for the sentence imposed in that case made it difficult to draw any useful comparison to the present case. |
| BUT v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 37 | Singapore | Cited for comparison with the present case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) Section 375(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) Section 375(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) Section 109 | Singapore |
| Penal Code Section 292(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed) Section 30(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) Section 267(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) Section 23(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) Section 161 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) Section 147(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) Section 147(3) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 Section 8 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 Section 9 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 Section 14 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 Section 11 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code Section 157(c) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Abetment
- Conspiracy
- Rape
- Wife Sharing
- Drugging
- Penile-Vaginal Intercourse
- Unconscious
- Dormicum
15.2 Keywords
- Rape
- Abetment
- Conspiracy
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Penal Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Offences | 85 |
| Abetment | 75 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
| Criminal Procedure | 30 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 25 |
| Duty of Candour | 15 |
| Breach of Contract | 10 |
| Torts | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Conspiracy