PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v BQG & Anor
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 8–14 June 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Pang Khang Chau |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Constellation Law Chambers LLC, Eldan Law LLP, Charles Ng, Kumaresan Gohulabalan, Lee Peng Khoon Edwin, Oei Su-Ying Renee Nicollette, Stephanie Looi, Tay Jia En, Tin Shu Min |
Source: [2026] SGHC 122, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (10)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v BQG and another [2026] SGHC 122, decided by Pang Khang Chau J on 8 June 2026 in Criminal Case No 40 of 2019, followed a trial with hearing dates spanning from November 2021 to September 2025. The first accused, BQG, who had provided tuina massages at various temples since the 1980s, claimed trial to 15 charges, including nine charges of sexual assault by penetration under section 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code for digitally penetrating the complainant — the daughter of the second accused, CAT, born 5 March 2001 — during tuina sessions and ritual showers conducted in the flat where the accused persons and complainant resided. The judgment, addressing the Prosecution's case that the second accused conspired with the first accused, cites the Penal Code, the Children and Young Persons Act, and 4 Singapore authorities.
[2026] SGHC 122 explained
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v BQG & Anor ([2026] SGHC 122) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 8 June 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Law. 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 [2026] SGHC 122 about?
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v BQG & Anor ([2026] SGHC 122) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Offences — Sexual offences”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 122 consider?
The judgment refers to Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38) and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What charges did the accused face in Public Prosecutor v BQG & Anor [2026] SGHC 122?
In [2026] SGHC 122, the first accused, BQG, claimed trial to 15 charges including nine sexual assault by penetration charges under section 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code, arising from tuina massage sessions and ritual showers involving the second accused's daughter, born 5 March 2001.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (4)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 122)