PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v BWJ

[2023] SGCA 2 Court of Appeal 11 January 2023 CA/CCA 20/2020

8 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Convicted

“For the reasons given, we allowed the Prosecution’s appeal, set aside BWJ’s acquittal and convicted him on the charge.”

Source: [2023] SGCA 2, Court of Appeal, decided 11 January 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	11 January 2023
Judges	Judith Prakash, Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim	Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Convicted
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Netto & Magin LLC, Tan Rajah & Cheah, Chia Ru Yun Megan Joan, Luke Anton Netto, Ng Yiwen, Selene Yap Wan Ting, Tay Beng Tiat Reuben, Yvonne Poon Yirong

Source: [2023] SGCA 2, Court of Appeal, decided 11 January 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Offences — Aggravated rape Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Acquittal Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Aggravated rape Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Period on bail

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (3)

Judith Prakash Coram Tay Yong Kwang Delivered Woo Bih Li Coram

Counsel (9)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Netto & Magin LLC Firm Tan Rajah & Cheah Firm Chia Ru Yun Megan Joan Counsel for the respondent Luke Anton Netto Counsel for the respondent Ng Yiwen Counsel for the appellant Selene Yap Wan Ting Counsel for the appellant

Tay Beng Tiat Reuben Counsel for the respondent

Yvonne Poon Yirong Counsel for the appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Appellant

BWJ Respondent

Case Significance

Public Prosecutor v BWJ [2023] SGCA 2 was decided in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal No 20 of 2020) by Judith Prakash JCA, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Woo Bih Li JAD, heard on 13 and 27 September 2022, with Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the grounds of decision on 11 January 2023. The respondent, whose name was redacted as BWJ, was charged with aggravated rape of the complainant (V) under ss 375(1)(a) and (3)(a)(i) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The charge alleged that on 6 August 2017 in the afternoon, at a redacted Singapore address, BWJ penetrated V, a then-29-year-old female, without her consent, and to facilitate the offence voluntarily caused hurt by strangling her neck. V had been BWJ's girlfriend from early 2012 to sometime in 2017, and the exact date their relationship ended was disputed at trial and on appeal. The catchwords cover aggravated rape, appeal against acquittal, and sentencing including a period on bail.

Summary

The Public Prosecutor appealed against the High Court's acquittal of BWJ, who had been charged with the aggravated rape of his former girlfriend, the central dispute being whether the sexual intercourse was consensual and whether their relationship had ended by the date of the offence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and convicted BWJ on the charge. It sentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment and the mandatory minimum of 12 strokes of the cane, backdating the term to his arrest but excluding the period spent on bail.

What was Public Prosecutor v BWJ [2023] SGCA 2 about?

Decided by the Court of Appeal on 11 January 2023, it concerned a charge of aggravated rape against the respondent BWJ under ss 375(1)(a) and (3)(a)(i) of the Penal Code, with catchwords covering appeal against acquittal and sentencing, including a period spent on bail.

What was the relationship between BWJ and the complainant ([2023] SGCA 2)?

The complainant, V, had been BWJ's girlfriend from early 2012 to sometime in 2017. The exact date on which their relationship ended in 2017 was a matter in dispute both at trial and on appeal in the Court of Appeal proceedings.