PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v CQW
Outcome
AcquittedI acquitted the Accused of the 6th Charge.
Source: [2025] SGHC 117, High Court (General Division), decided 30 June 2025. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Acquitted |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Jay Law Corporation, Jane Lim Ern Hui, Jeremy Bin Wen Hao, K Jayakumar Naidu |
Source: [2025] SGHC 117, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHC 117 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 30 June 2025 concerning Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing offences and statements. The judgment was delivered by Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi. The case was brought by Public Prosecutor (plaintiff) against CQW (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Attorney-General's Chambers and Jay Law Corporation. The judgment cites 33 cases (32 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code.
[2025] SGHC 117 explained
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v CQW ([2025] SGHC 117) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 June 2025. It is categorised under Criminal Law 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] SGHC 117 about?
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v CQW ([2025] SGHC 117) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Offences — Sexual offences” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Statements — Voluntariness”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 117 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.
Summary
A man was convicted of sexually penetrating a minor under 16 years of age, an offence under s 376A(1)(a) of the Penal Code, after engaging in sexual acts with a 14-year-old he had met online. The court sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment, taking into account his guilty plea, the absence of coercion, and the narrow age gap, but noting the need for general deterrence in cases involving sexual exploitation of minors.
What was decided in [2025] SGHC 117?
[2025] SGHC 117 (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v CQW) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 30 June 2025 addressing Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically offences and statements. The judgment was delivered by Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi.
Who were the parties in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v CQW ([2025] SGHC 117)?
The plaintiff in [2025] SGHC 117 was Public Prosecutor, and the defendant was CQW. Legal representation included Jay Law Corporation and Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 30 June 2025 in the High Court (General Division).
Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 117?
[2025] SGHC 117 was delivered by Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi in the High Court (General Division) on 30 June 2025. The case concerned Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC 117 cite?
[2025] SGHC 117 cites 33 prior decisions, including 1 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Criminal Procedure Code, Penal Code.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (33)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Sentencing outcomes for this offence
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC 117)