[2014] SGHC 149

“epresents the greatest intrusion into the bodily integrity and privacy of the victim (in that case a minor). Additionally, the Prosecution highlighted the case of Public Prosecutor v Azuar bin Ahamad [2014] SGHC 149 (“Azuar”), where the offender, who was a serial rapist, had pleaded guilty to three charges of rape and”

“see [69]), Haliffie (CA) (see [90]), and Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Beng [2016] SGHC 169 (see [28])), two cases fell within Category 3 (PP v AOM (see [19]) and Public Prosecutor v Azuar bin Ahamad [2014] SGHC 149 (“Azuar”) (see [133])), and none fell within Category 4. The result is that the present situation is lit”

“A case which could conceivably fall within Band 3 is PP v Azuar bin Ahamad [2014] SGHC 149 (“Azuar”). In Terence Ng we considered this case as falling within Band 3 of the framework for rape offences (at [58(b)]). We would similarly consider this a Band 3 offence for sexual assault by pene”

“or as such conduct allows offenders to repeatedly rewatch their offences for their own perverted pleasure and creates the risk of the recordings being circulated: Public Prosecutor v Azuar Bin Ahamad [2014] SGHC 149 (“Azuar”) at [112]. In the present case, the accused took numerous obscene photographs and videos of the”

“of anterograde amnesia, which is consistent with the undisputed explanation of the condition by Dr Guo in the present case, was set out in the following terms in Public Prosecutor v Azuar Bin Ahamad [2014] SGHC 149:”