PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN CHEE BENG

[2023] SGHC 93 High Court (General Division) 13 April 2023 HC/MA 9146/2021/01 · HC/MA 9236/2021/01

32 cases cited (30 SG, 2 foreign) Cited by 4 cases

Outcome

Convicted

“I convict the Accused on the First, Second, and Fourth Charges, and sentence the Accused to imprisonment sentences of one week, three months, and nine months respectively.”

Source: [2023] SGHC 93, High Court (General Division), decided 13 April 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	13 April 2023
Judge	Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim	Criminal Law
Outcome	Convicted
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, Chooi Jing Yen, Christopher Ong Siu Jin, Phang Tze En Joshua

Source: [2023] SGHC 93, High Court (General Division), decided 13 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Offences — Sexual offences — Outrage of modesty — Whether complainant’s testimony corroborated Criminal Law — Offences — Sexual offences — Outrage of modesty — Whether complainant’s testimony unusually convincing Criminal Law — Offences — Sexual offences — Outrage of modesty — Adverse inference for accused’s election to remain silent

Practice Areas

Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Firm Chooi Jing Yen Counsel for the respondent

Christopher Ong Siu Jin Counsel for the appellant

Phang Tze En Joshua Counsel for the appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Appellant

Tan Chee Beng Respondent

Case Significance

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN CHEE BENG [2023] SGHC 93 was heard by Vincent Hoong J in the General Division of the High Court, with judgment reserved and delivered on 13 April 2023 in Magistrate's Appeal Nos 9146 and 9236 of 2021, a set of cross-appeals between the Prosecution and Tan Chee Beng. The case arose from allegations that the accused, the complainant's superior, committed four acts outraging or insulting her modesty over three incidents, with two charges brought for the first incident and one each for the second and third. At first instance the district judge, finding the complainant's evidence not unusually convincing and only the second incident corroborated, convicted on a limited basis; the cross-appeals concerned corroboration, whether the testimony was unusually convincing, and the adverse inference from the accused's election to remain silent.

What was Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng [2023] SGHC 93 about?

The cross-appeals in Magistrate's Appeal Nos 9146 and 9236 of 2021, heard by Vincent Hoong J, concerned outrage of modesty charges over four acts across three incidents, and whether the complainant's evidence was unusually convincing and corroborated.

What did the district judge find in Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng ([2023] SGHC 93)?

The district judge found the complainant's evidence not unusually convincing, citing inconsistencies such as her not screaming for help, and considered only the second of three incidents corroborated by other witnesses; the accused had elected not to testify.

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) Cases on this Act →

s 307(1)

Evidence Act (Cap 97) Cases on this Act →

s 159

Penal Code (Cap 224) Cases on this Act →

s 354 s 354(1) s 509

Cases Cited (32)

SG (6)

[2003] SGDC 244 [2017] SGHC 81 [2018] SGMC 17 [2019] SGHC 90 [2021] SGMC 61 [2021] SGMC 89

SLR (24)

[1995] 3 SLR(R) 158 [1997] 2 SLR(R) 556 [1997] 2 SLR(R) 569 [1998] 2 SLR(R) 855 [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686 [2012] 3 SLR 34 [2015] 3 SLR 222 [2017] 2 SLR 1015 [2017] 4 SLR 421 [2018] 3 SLR 1048 [2018] 4 SLR 1315 [2018] 4 SLR 580 [2018] 5 SLR 1108 [2018] 5 SLR 799 [2019] 2 SLR 490 [2019] 3 SLR 1402 [2019] 3 SLR 749 [2020] 1 SLR 486 [2020] 1 SLR 984 [2020] 2 SLR 533

MY (2)

[1950] MLJ 33 [1967] 1 MLJ 220