PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Khor Khai Gin, Davis
Outcome
Sentence imposedI therefore sentenced the accused to:(a) nine years and nine months’ imprisonment and seven strokes of the cane for the Second Charge;(b) two years’ imprisonment for the Third Charge;(c) nine years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane for the Sixth Charge; and(d) nine months’ imprisonment for the Tenth Charge.
Source: [2023] SGHC 304, High Court (General Division), decided 26 October 2023. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Pang Khang Chau |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Sentence imposed |
| Counsel | Adelphi Law Chambers LLC, Attorney-General's Chambers, Edwin Soh Chin Yuen, Kang Kok Boon, Favian, Theong Li Han |
Source: [2023] SGHC 304, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v Khor Khai Gin Davis [2023] SGHC 304 is a grounds of decision of Pang Khang Chau J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 26 October 2023 in Criminal Case No 69 of 2022. From sometime in 2020 until his arrest on 1 March 2021, the accused messaged multiple girls on Instagram offering part-time work or cash and invited them to his residence for sexual acts in exchange for cash; at least four girls aged between 13 and 17 responded, and he performed sexual acts on three of them, giving rise to ten charges. The accused pleaded guilty to four charges, with the remaining charges taken into consideration for sentencing, and one charge was for attempted statutory rape under provisions introduced by the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, which the judgment addresses for the purposes of sentencing.
[2023] SGHC 304 explained
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Khor Khai Gin, Davis ([2023] SGHC 304) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 October 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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] SGHC 304 about?
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Khor Khai Gin, Davis ([2023] SGHC 304) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Sexual offences” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Attempted rape”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 304 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Law Reform Act, Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), Penal Code (Cap 224), and Sentencing Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The Public Prosecutor charged Khor Khai Gin Davis, who contacted girls aged between 13 and 17 on Instagram and invited them to his residence for sexual acts in exchange for cash. He pleaded guilty to four charges, including sexual penetration of minors and attempted statutory rape, and the case raised a novel sentencing question following amendments under the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 removing the halved maximum term for attempts. The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years and six months' imprisonment and 13 strokes of the cane.
What was Public Prosecutor v Khor Khai Gin Davis [2023] SGHC 304 about?
It was a sentencing decision before Pang Khang Chau J concerning an accused who messaged girls on Instagram and performed sexual acts on three of them, aged 13 to 17, in exchange for cash, decided on 26 October 2023.
What charges did the accused face in [2023] SGHC 304?
The accused faced ten charges, pleaded guilty to four with the rest taken into consideration, including one charge of attempted statutory rape under provisions introduced by the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, which the court addressed for sentencing.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (22)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 304)