Public Prosecutor v BWJ

BWJ was charged with aggravated rape of V under s 375(1)(a) and s 375(3)(a)(i) of the Penal Code, the charge alleging that on 6 August 2017 he penetrated her without consent and strangled her to facilitate the offence. They had been in a relationship since early 2012 and shared a rented flat. BWJ did not dispute that intercourse took place that day, but said the relationship had not ended and the sex was consensual. The prosecution's case was that V had ended the relationship and BWJ refused to accept it.

After the incident BWJ took V, who was in pain, to a clinic, where she told the doctor and a clinic assistant that she had been raped and the police were called. Over the next day he sent her many messages begging her not to make or to withdraw a police report, and sent voice messages to relatives. He was arrested on 7 August 2017. After an 11-day trial in Criminal Case No 75 of 2018, the High Court judge acquitted him on 26 June 2020, citing inconsistencies in V's evidence and inconclusive forensic and medical evidence. The prosecution appealed in Criminal Appeal No 20 of 2020. The judge's brief oral reasons were certified as his full grounds only in May 2022, and BWJ spent over two years on bail pending appeal, unable to work.

1. Whether the acquittal was against the weight of the evidence, so that appellate intervention was justified.
2. Whether V consented to the sexual intercourse on 6 August 2017.
3. What sentence was appropriate under the Terence Ng framework, and how the long period on bail pending appeal should be treated.

An appellate court defers to a trial judge's findings on credibility, but has no disadvantage in drawing inferences from objective facts. The court held the acquittal wholly against the weight of the evidence on four points.

First, the messages showed the relationship had ended: V ignored about 100 messages before BWJ returned unannounced, then avoided him. Even on his own account she shouted that she wanted to go out and he covered her mouth. Second, the extensive tear in her T-shirt, the damaged bra fastening and the neck bruising showed violence, which was inconsistent with his case that no violence occurred. Third, his desperate messages begging her not to report him, his avoidance of the clinic once police arrived, his voice message to a nephew admitting he hit her, and his plans to move his belongings to Malaysia showed a guilty mind. Fourth, V's inconsistencies did not undermine the central point that the relationship was over; she had explained holding back her report out of regard for his family, and she had told independent witnesses she was raped.

On sentence, the case fell within band 2 of Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449. Violence, including strangulation and a threat to kill, was the only offence-specific aggravating factor; the prior relationship was neutral, and the harm was not shown to be especially severe. The starting point was 14 years. Following Public Prosecutor v Sivanantha a/l Danabala [2015] 4 SLR 585, BWJ deserved some credit for dutifully returning from Malaysia and complying with his bail conditions. Because he had not contributed to the long delay and could not work while on bail, the term was reduced by one year rather than treating bail as imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal (Judith Prakash JCA, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Woo Bih Li JAD) allowed the prosecution's appeal, set aside the acquittal and convicted BWJ of aggravated rape. It sentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment and the mandatory minimum of 12 strokes of the cane, backdated to 7 August 2017, excluding the period on bail from 27 June 2020 to 12 September 2022.