Judgment Header
BMD v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 70
Loading…
[2015] SGCA 70
Court of Appeal of Singapore14 Jan 2016Criminal Appeal No 5 of 2013
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 5 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“In BMD v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 70 (“BMD”), the accused was convicted after trial of six charges: two counts of rape, two counts of digital-anal penetration, one charge of penile-anal penetration and one charge of penile-oral penetrat”
“he cane to be passed. In addition, the Prosecution highlighted three cases being Public Prosecutor v AHB [2010] SGHC 138, Public Prosecutor v Roslan bin Maswan (CC34/2014) and BMD v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 70.”
“line with the sentences meted out in other cases concerning sexual abuse by a family member over an extended period (see Public Prosecutor v BNN [2014] SGHC 7 (“PP v BNN”) and BMD v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 70).”
“was clearly a distinction made between penile-vaginal penetration and other forms of penetration. On appeal, this court found no basis for disturbing any of the sentences (see BMD v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 70).”
“nd seven years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane for the penile-anal penetration and fellatio offences. These sentences were affirmed by the Court of Appeal on appeal: BMD v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 70.”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
BMD v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 70
Case Metadata
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 5 of 2013
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2016-01-14
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.