Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng

Mr Tan Chee Beng, a director of a small company, faced four charges arising from three incidents involving the complainant, an administrative employee who dealt with him in her work. She alleged that sometime between 15 August 2018 and 10 September 2018 he told her he had a "hard-on" and twice pulled her hand towards his groin (the first and second charges, under s 509 and s 354(1) of the Penal Code); that on 10 September 2018 he swiped her groin area twice over her dress (the third charge); and that in January 2019, in the warehouse cold room, he slid his hand along her back to the side of her breast (the fourth charge). She lodged a police report on 23 January 2019, after the company's majority shareholder (PW4) learned of the matter and supported her. Her employment was later terminated after she took 14 days of unpaid leave.

After his submission of no case to answer was rejected, Mr Tan elected not to give evidence. The district judge found the complainant's evidence not unusually convincing, citing matters such as her not screaming for help and continuing to accept car rides from him. Holding that only the second incident was corroborated, he convicted Mr Tan on the third charge, sentenced him to five months' imprisonment, and acquitted him of the rest. The Prosecution appealed the acquittals in HC/MA 9146/2021, and Mr Tan appealed his conviction and sentence in HC/MA 9236/2021.

1. Whether the complainant's testimony was unusually convincing
2. Whether her account was corroborated by the other witnesses and evidence
3. Whether the matters relied on by the defence, and the accused's silence, affected the finding of guilt
4. What sentences were appropriate for each charge and in total

The judge found the complainant's evidence internally consistent: she gave detailed, coherent accounts of each incident, explained the gap between incidents and her delay in reporting, and did not exaggerate, conceding for instance that her hand never touched him and that the swipes were over her dress. It was also externally consistent with her message to Mr Tan on the day of the second incident asking him to stop, and with her police report. Applying AOF v Public Prosecutor [2012] 3 SLR 34, her testimony was unusually convincing.

It was also corroborated. A warehouse colleague (PW2) was told of each incident shortly after it happened, including her phrase that Mr Tan had "started his nonsense again"; her supervisor confirmed she reported the second incident to him that day; and PW4 described a conversation in which Mr Tan, rather than denying touching her, said he was "just joking" and blamed how she dressed, which the judge treated as reading like a partial confession. The inconsistencies the district judge relied on concerned immaterial details. Amendments to the charges did not undermine her credibility, the defence having declined to recall witnesses. There was no evidence of a motive to frame him; she in fact lost her job. Her continued acceptance of lifts was explained by his apology and her need to keep her job, and treating her failure to scream as damaging was improper, since victims cannot be expected to react uniformly. Her exaggeration in a later victim impact statement about being jobless did not affect the elements of the charges. Faced with this evidence, Mr Tan's silence strengthened the finding of guilt.

On sentence, applying Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor [2018] 4 SLR 580, common aggravating factors were abuse of his position as her superior, some psychological harm, persistent offending and lack of remorse shown by his request to delete her message and his victim-blaming. The second charge fell in the low range of Band 1, the third at the lower end of Band 2 as there was no proof her private parts were touched, and the fourth, involving contact with her breast, warranted nine months. The first charge crossed the custodial threshold. The first two charges formed one transaction, and running the second and fourth consecutively reflected the whole period of offending without being crushing.

The High Court set aside the three acquittals and convicted Mr Tan on the first, second and fourth charges, while upholding his conviction and five-month sentence on the third charge. He was sentenced to one week, three months and nine months' imprisonment on the first, second and fourth charges, with the second and fourth running consecutively, for a global sentence of 12 months' imprisonment.