CEO v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2025] SGCA 18 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2025] SGCA 18 Court of Appeal 25 April 2025 CA/CCA 3/2024 · CA/CM 44/2024 · CA/CM 1/2025 33 min read

9 cases cited (8 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	25 April 2025
Judges	Belinda Ang Saw Ean, See Kee Oon, Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim	Criminal Law, Abuse of Process, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Withers KhattarWong LLP, Ang Siok Chen, Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam, Eugene Lee, Sruthi Boppana, Tan Jia Yi, Zephan Chua Wei En

Source: [2025] SGCA 18, Court of Appeal, decided 25 April 2025 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Offences — Rape Abuse of Process — Collateral purpose Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Trials — Whether accused person received inadequate legal assistance from trial counsel

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Abuse of Process Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (3)

Belinda Ang Saw Ean Coram See Kee Oon Delivered Sundaresh Menon Coram

Counsel (8)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Withers KhattarWong LLP Firm Ang Siok Chen Counsel Respondent Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam Counsel Appellant Eugene Lee Counsel Respondent Sruthi Boppana Counsel Respondent Tan Jia Yi Counsel Appellant Zephan Chua Wei En Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent CEO Appellant

Case Significance

[2025] SGCA 18 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 25 April 2025 concerning Abuse of Process, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing offences, collateral purpose, and appeal. The judgment was delivered by See Kee Oon, with Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Sundaresh Menon on the coram. The case was brought by CEO (appellant) against Public Prosecutor (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Withers KhattarWong LLP and Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 9 cases (8 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 3 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code, the Evidence Act, and the Penal Code.

[2025] SGCA 18 explained

CEO v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 18) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 25 April 2025. It is categorised under Criminal Law, Abuse of Process, and 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 [2025] SGCA 18 about?

CEO v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 18) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Offences — Rape”, “Abuse of Process — Collateral purpose”, “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Trials — Whether accused person received inadequate legal assistance from trial counsel”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2025] SGCA 18 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2025] SGCA 18 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGCA 15, [2025] SGCA 9, and [2024] SGHC 109. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

CEO appealed against his conviction for abetment by conspiracy to commit rape under s 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. On appeal, he challenged the reliance on his video-recorded interviews and post-incident communications, sought to adduce fresh evidence, and alleged his trial counsel was negligent and incompetent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and both criminal motions, finding the challenges without merit and the sentence appropriate.

What was decided in [2025] SGCA 18?

[2025] SGCA 18 (CEO v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) is a Court of Appeal decision from 25 April 2025 addressing Abuse of Process, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically offences, collateral purpose, and appeal. The judgment was delivered by See Kee Oon.

Who were the parties in CEO v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 18)?

The appellant in [2025] SGCA 18 was CEO, and the respondent was Public Prosecutor. Legal representation included Withers KhattarWong LLP and Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 25 April 2025 in the Court of Appeal.

Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 18?

[2025] SGCA 18 was delivered by See Kee Oon in the Court of Appeal on 25 April 2025. Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Sundaresh Menon also sat on the coram. The case concerned Abuse of Process, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.