JASONS LIM HUA TONG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Lim Hua Tong Jasons claimed trial in the court below to one charge of outrage of modesty under s 354(1) of the Penal Code. The charge concerned him grabbing the victim's right breast while measuring her bust at a café, in connection with a casting interview. The District Judge convicted him and imposed seven months' imprisonment on that charge.

Before the same District Judge he also pleaded guilty to two forgery charges under s 465 of the Penal Code and two charges under ss 148 and 154 of the Companies Act, with four more charges taken into consideration. The aggregate sentence was 14 months' imprisonment.

In Magistrate's Appeal No 9021 of 2024, heard in the General Division of the High Court, he appealed in person against the conviction on the outrage of modesty charge and against the aggregate sentence as manifestly excessive. The judgment was delivered ex tempore.

Issues

1. Whether inconsistencies in the victim's evidence, including which hand was used, made the conviction unsafe
2. Whether the absence of CCTV footage and the victim's conduct after the incident undermined her credibility
3. Whether the defence had shown that the victim had a motive to make a false accusation
4. Whether the sentence of seven months' imprisonment and the aggregate sentence were manifestly excessive

Holding

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and dismissed the appeal against sentence. The seven-month term for outrage of modesty and the aggregate sentence of 14 months' imprisonment imposed by the District Judge were left undisturbed.

Reasoning

The victim's uncertainty about which hand grabbed her fit her account that both of his hands were around the sides of her breasts while he measured her, and she could not easily have looked down during the process. Following Tay Wee Kiat v Public Prosecutor [2018] 4 SLR 1315, amending the charge to remove the reference to a particular hand did not by itself make her evidence unreliable. His claim that an injured left finger prevented the grab had no supporting records from any polyclinic, and the finding that the two were at arm's length answered his claim that he could not reach across. The other alleged inconsistencies, about the interview time and the café lighting, rested on mischaracterisations and were not material.

The CCTV footage had been in his own possession throughout, so he could have kept it if it truly helped him. It was reasonable for the victim not to ask a waitress she understood to be his employee for help, and victims of sexual offences are not expected to react in a set way.

Under Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter [2020] 1 SLR 486, the defence bears the burden of showing a motive to fabricate, and he had not done so.

On sentence, the District Judge rightly placed the offence at the lower end of Band 2 of the Kunasekaran framework, given three offence-specific aggravating factors and a firm grab lasting a few seconds that went well beyond a fleeting touch. The unreported decision he cited carried no weight and the reported one was a Band 1 case. His pleas about bankruptcy, family hardship and his personal history were not relevant, and the aggregate sentence was proportionate.

From the judgment