Public Prosecutor v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan

Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan, a 42-year-old Singaporean man, was convicted on 22 September 2025 in Criminal Case No 38 of 2025 of one count of rape under s 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code, punishable under s 375(2). The conviction reasons are in Public Prosecutor v Fok Jin Jin Dhanabalan [2025] SGHC 219. This ex tempore judgment dealt with sentence.

As found at trial, on the evening of 30 January 2021 the victim, C, celebrated her birthday with friends at a restaurant in Dempsey and then a bar in Holland Village. C and her friend E, who was very intoxicated, could not get a ride home, and C accepted a lift from the accused and his friend Lee Kit. Unknown to her, the two men had watched and followed them for about 40 minutes. At her condominium, the men put E into C's bed; C fell into bed and became unconscious, and both men sexually assaulted her, the accused by penile penetration. The men returned when the accused realised he had left his mobile phone in the bedroom. C woke, called her mother and the police, and both men were arrested at the complex.

The Prosecution argued for the lower end of Band 3 under the Terence Ng framework; the Defence argued for the higher end of Band 1 or lower end of Band 2.

1. Whether the offence fell within Band 2 or Band 3 of the Terence Ng sentencing framework, and what the indicative starting point should be.
2. Whether the accused's steps to avoid detection were a further offence-specific aggravating factor.
3. Whether any offender-specific factors justified adjusting the sentence.
4. Whether a compensation order should be made despite the Defence's claim that the accused could not pay.

On the band, the court applied Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449 and found six offence-specific aggravating factors: C's vulnerability through intoxication, some premeditation in following the women while knowing they were drunk, the joint offending with Lee Kit, severe psychiatric harm (C was diagnosed with PTSD and a mixed depressive and anxiety disorder linked to the rape), the violation of her home, and the failure to use a condom. The court rejected the Defence point that the home factor applies only to abuse of trust within a family, since the home is a place of both protection and vulnerability. Weighing intensity as well as number, and comparing precedents, it placed the case in Band 2 and took an indicative starting point of 15 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes.

On concealment, the court accepted that the accused had lied to the police twice, but the evidence was unclear on whether he got Lee Kit to lie, and the conduct fell well short of that in Muhammad Alif, so it did not add an aggravating factor.

At the second stage, there were no offender-specific factors; being a first offender carries little weight for serious offences. Retribution and deterrence required the starting point to stand.

On compensation, the basis for the sum, covering therapy and psychiatric costs, was not disputed. No evidence supported the claim that the accused could not pay, and his salary record, car ownership and stated rental income pointed the other way.

The High Court sentenced the accused to 15 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, and ordered him to pay compensation of $18,524.12 to the victim, with 4 months' imprisonment in default.