Public Prosecutor v CPH

The accused, CPH, began a relationship with the victim's mother in 2002 and was introduced to her children in early 2003. According to the Statement of Facts, which he admitted without qualification, he gave the victim special attention, bought her things including a handphone, began talking to her about sex, and first committed a sexual act on her in 2003, telling her to keep it secret. The family moved in with him in 2004 and he married the victim's mother in June 2004. In July 2004, when the victim was 12 years old, he had sexual intercourse with her at night while her mother was at work and the other children were asleep. He had intercourse with her again in 2005 and in 2006, and from 2004 to 2006 this happened about three times a week, without a condom. The sexual relationship continued until 2008 and resumed in 2011 after his release from prison. The victim later cut off contact, her mother discovered a video in 2013 and stopped speaking to her, and the victim lodged a police report on 7 February 2017.

In Criminal Case No 29 of 2023 he pleaded guilty to one charge of rape of a female under 14 under s 375(e) of the Penal Code and two charges of carnal connection with a female under 16 under s 140(1)(i) of the Women's Charter, with six other charges taken into consideration. He was 50 years old and had many antecedents, none of them sexual offences. He appealed against sentence, and these are the grounds.

1. Whether premeditation and severe harm to the victim carried real aggravating weight for the rape charge under the Terence Ng framework.
2. Whether the accused's rehabilitative progress since his release justified a lower sentence.
3. What sentences were appropriate for the carnal connection charges and whether all three sentences should run consecutively.

Applying Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449, the judge found five offence-specific aggravating factors: abuse of his position as the mother's partner and then the victim's stepfather, the victim's vulnerability at 12 years old, exposure to pregnancy and disease from the lack of a condom, premeditation, and severe harm. Grooming showed premeditation; that he did not photograph her or show her pornography did not reduce its weight, because the question is whether the conduct was deliberate. The harm went beyond what is inherent in rape: the victim described lasting stress, guilt, shame and difficulty trusting people, and lost her relationship with her mother. The indicative starting point was 16 years, at the high end of Band 2.

At the second stage, the two other rape charges taken into consideration justified an uplift, though the overlapping indecency charge was not double counted. Rehabilitative progress is usually relevant for young offenders, and for serious sexual crimes by a man over 50, retribution and deterrence dominated, so his steady work and studies since his release in 2016 could do little. His cooperation and guilty plea warranted a one-year reduction, giving 15 years.

For carnal connection, Tay Kim Kuan v Public Prosecutor [2001] 2 SLR(R) 876 sets a benchmark of one year, enhanced where there are aggravating factors, and the range in ADK guided cases of abuse of trust. Without a pregnancy the case was less severe than Kunasekaran, but the significant abuse of trust and a further carnal connection charge taken into consideration justified more than the bottom of the range. All three sentences ran consecutively given the persistence, duration and frequency of the offending, and the separate transactions; 20 years was not crushing.

The High Court convicted the accused on the three proceeded charges and sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment for the rape charge and two and a half years' imprisonment for each carnal connection charge, all to run consecutively, for a global sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. He was not liable to caning as he was above 50 years old.