[2013] SGHC 235

“ovision, the judges decided not to enhance the sentence of imprisonment on account of the additional strokes of the cane that the offenders were exempted from. The first case, Public Prosecutor v BMD [2013] SGHC 235 (“BMD”), concerned an accused person, aged 40, who was convicted of six charges of various sexual offenc”

“In Public Prosecutor v BMD [2013] SGHC 235 (“BMD”), the accused was convicted of a number of sexual offences which included rape and sexual assault by penetration. In meting out the sentences for each charge, Tay J found that the offence for”

“mework proposed in Pram Nair was a useful starting point for cases of penile-oral penetration, which is generally regarded as more severe than digital-vaginal penetration (see Public Prosecutor v BMD [2013] SGHC 235 at [73]) and is covered by the same penal provision (s 376 of the Penal Code).”

“to 14 years’ imprisonment, rather than ten to 15 years’ imprisonment under the Pram Nair framework). This was based on the observation of Tay Yong Kwang J (as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v BMD [2013] SGHC 235 (“BMD”) at [73] that digital-anal penetration was the least severe of the penetration offences.”

“ed by the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah [2015] 3 SLR 297, took the approach that anal intercourse was more serious than fellatio. Similarly, the High Court in Public Prosecutor v BMD [2013] SGHC 235 (“BMD”) considered that fellatio and penile-anal penetration were of the same severity and both were mor”