CJH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGCA 19 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGCA 19 Court of Appeal 6 July 2023 CA/CCA 39/2022 10 min read

4 cases cited Cited by 5 cases

Outcome

Appeal allowed

We allow the appeal against sentence only to the extent explained above.

Source: [2023] SGCA 19, Court of Appeal, decided 6 July 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	6 July 2023
Judges	Judith Prakash, Sundaresh Menon, Tay Yong Kwang
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Public Defender's Office, Michelle Tay Xin Ying, Muhammad Taufiq bin Suraidi, Ryan David Lim, Selene Yap Wan Ting, Wong Kok Weng

Source: [2023] SGCA 19, Court of Appeal, decided 6 July 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (3)

Judith Prakash Coram Sundaresh Menon Coram Tay Yong Kwang Delivered

Counsel (7)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Public Defender's Office Firm Michelle Tay Xin Ying Counsel Respondent Muhammad Taufiq bin Suraidi Counsel Appellant Ryan David Lim Counsel Appellant Selene Yap Wan Ting Counsel Respondent Wong Kok Weng Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent CJH Appellant

Case Significance

CJH v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 19 is an ex tempore judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered on 6 July 2023 in Criminal Appeal No 39 of 2022, with Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the judgment of the court sitting with Sundaresh Menon CJ and Judith Prakash JCA. The appellant, a Singapore citizen now 21 years old, committed various sexual offences against his biological sister ("V") when he was between 15 and 18 years old and she was between nine and 12, all in the family home. He pleaded guilty before the High Court to three charges under s 376A(1)(a) punishable under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), each involving penetration of V; the provision carries imprisonment of up to 20 years and a liability to fine or caning for an offence against a person under 14 years of age.

[2023] SGCA 19 explained

CJH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 19) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 6 July 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 5 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGCA 19 about?

CJH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 19) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGCA 19 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2023] SGCA 19?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGCA 19 has been cited by 5 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

CJH appealed against the sentence imposed for sexual offences committed against his younger biological sister when he was between 15 and 18 years old, having pleaded guilty to three charges with six others taken into consideration. Applying the totality principle, the Court of Appeal considered the aggregate term of 18 years to be crushing for a young offender. It reduced the sentences for the penile-anal and penile-oral charges, resulting in an aggregate of 16 years' imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane, allowing the appeal to that extent.

What was CJH v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 19 about?

It was an ex tempore Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on 6 July 2023 with Tay Yong Kwang JCA speaking for the court, on a criminal appeal by a 21-year-old who pleaded guilty to sexual offences committed against his biological sister when he was aged 15 to 18.

What charges did the appellant face in [2023] SGCA 19?

The appellant pleaded guilty to three charges under s 376A(1)(a) punishable under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), each involving penetration of his sister V; the provision carries up to 20 years' imprisonment and a liability to fine or caning.