Public Prosecutor v D’Almeida James Francis [2026] SGMC 26

Introduction

The Accused, D’Almeida James Francis (male Singaporean of 26 years of age) (“the Accused”), pleaded guilty before me to the following charge:

MAC-905101-2025

On 6 April 2025, at or about 8.05 pm, at level one of the female toilet of [the Serviced Apartment] (“the Female Toilet”), the Accused did intentionally record one [the Victim] (female of 27 years old) doing a private act, to wit, by pointing his mobile phone under the toilet cubicle door to record her while she was showering in the nude, without her consent, and knowing that she did not consent to him recording the act, and the Accused has thereby committed an offence under section 377BB(3) of the Penal Code 1871 (“the Code”) punishable under section 377BB(7) of the Code.

One other charge of criminal trespass by the Accused into the Female Toilet under section 447 the Code, committed on the same day was taken into consideration with the consent of the Accused for the purpose of sentencing.

Having considered all relevant sentencing considerations, I sentenced the Accused to six weeks’ imprisonment for the proceeded charge.

Being dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, the Accused has appealed against the same.

Statement of Facts

The Accused admitted to the following statement of facts without any qualification:

At the time of the offence on 6 April 2025, the Accused was working as a concierge at the Serviced Apartment. The Victim, a 27-year-old female, was a resident at the Serviced Apartment.

On 7 April 2025 at 5.05pm, the Victim lodged a report at Orchard NPC informing that she was being filmed while showering at the Female Toilet in the gymnasium at level one located within the Serviced Apartment.

Investigations revealed that on 6 April 2025, the Accused reported for his work as a concierge at the Serviced Apartment. At about 8.05pm, he left his concierge desk as he needed to use the toilet. He went to the toilets near the gymnasium. While on his way, he noticed that the door to the Female Toilet at level one was closed. As his colleague had asked for his help to do some checks on the Female Toilet to ensure its cleanliness and that all was in order, the Accused decided that he would go into the Female Toilet to do these checks, after he had used the washroom in the male toilet.

Upon entering the Female Toilet, the Accused noticed that there was someone showering in one of the cubicles at the far end of the toilet. He then felt tempted to film whoever was showering. He took his handphone, switched on the camera function to the video-recording mode, placed his handphone under the door of the cubicle and pressed the record button. The camera lens of the handphone was facing into the showering cubicle, through the gap between the floor and the door of the cubicle. He did this as he had wanted to record the person who was showering in the nude.

As it was the Victim who was showering at the material time, she noticed that there was a light emanating from a handphone at the frosted glass door of the cubicle she was showering in. She saw the Accused’s hand holding a handphone and pointing it towards her. The Victim shouted as she was in shock, and the Accused ran away.

The Accused captured a three-second recording. He deleted the video. The video was not recovered. The Accused did not ask for the Victim’s consent to film her while she was showering. The Accused did not know the Victim prior to the offence and therefore knew that the Victim did not consent to being recorded while showering.

Therefore, on 6 April 2025 at about 8.05pm, at the Female Toilet of the Serviced Apartment, the Accused did intentionally record the Victim doing a private act, to wit, showering, by pointing his handphone under the toilet cubicle door to record her while she was showering in the nude, without her consent, and knowing that she did not consent to him recording the act, and he had thereby committed an offence under section 377BB(3), and punishable under section 377BB(7) of the Code.

Antecedent

The Accused was a first-time offender.

Prosecution’s Submissions on Sentence

The Prosecution submitted for an imprisonment term of between five to eight weeks.

The Sentencing Framework in Nicholas Tan

The Prosecution pointed out that although the sentencing framework set out in Nicholas Tan Siew Chye v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 35 (“Nicholas Tan”) was for an offence under section 377BB(4) of the Code , the High Court in Nicholas Tan observed that there was no reason why the same sentencing framework should not also apply to offences under section 377BB(3), provided that these offences are also punishable under section 377BB(7).

The Prosecution then set out to apply the sentencing framework in Nicholas Tan to the present case, which is under section 377BB(3) and punishable under section 377BB(7) of the Code as follows:

Under Step 1 of the framework, where the court is to consider the offence-specific factors and identify the level of harm caused by the offence as well as the level of the offender’s culpability, the Prosecution submitted that the present case fell within the low harm and low culpability category. The Accused’s culpability was slightly increased as he knew that the Victim did not consent to being recorded. Indeed, she could not have consented given that they had no prior relationship or conversation. Moreover, the Accused was able to commit the offence because he was a staff at the Service Apartment and was able to access the compounds of the Serviced Apartments freely (notwithstanding that it was still a crime to enter the Female Toilet).

At Step 2 and 3, the court is to identify the applicable indicative sentencing range before proceeding to identify the appropriate starting point within that range. Under the low harm and low culpability category of the sentencing framework, the sentence range for a first-time offender who is convicted after trial is from a fine up to four months’ imprisonment. The Prosecution submitted for a starting sentence of seven to 12 weeks’ imprisonment.

At Step 4, the court is to adjust the starting point sentence having regard to offender specific aggravating and mitigating factors. Under this step, the Prosecution highlighted that the Accused had the Criminal Trespass charge taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. However, as the Accused had pleaded guilty at Stage 1 of the Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas (“the Guidelines”) and therefore entitled to 30% sentencing discount from the starting sentence of seven to 12 weeks’ imprisonment had he been convicted of the proceeded charge after trial as set out in [18] above, the Prosecution submitted for an eventual sentence of five to eight weeks’ imprisonment.

The Prosecution further submitted that the above eventual sentence was in line with the following sentencing precedents:

Case Name

Brief Facts

Sentence Imposed

PP v Aung Myint

[2023] SGMC 93

The offender made two short recordings of his tenant showering but was interrupted because his tenant noticed him making the recordings.

The offender pleaded guilty (at Stage 1 of Guidelines) to one charge under s 377BB(5) and punishable under s 377BB(7) of the Code.

The Court considered that there were some planning and a breach of trust, but accepted that there were mitigating factors in his letter of apology, commitment to counselling, and cooperation with the police.

Six weeks’ imprisonment.

Sentence was affirmed on appeal.

PP v Ryan You Jun Chao

[2020] SGMC 42

The offender had entered a female toilet and photographed fellow hall residents showering on two occasions.

He pleaded guilty to two charges under section 509 of the Code.

The Court considered that there was some breach of trust that would normally justify a sentence of between eight to ten weeks’ imprisonment, but accepted that the offender had shown remorse, cooperated with the authorities, and was a first offender.

Seven weeks’ imprisonment.

The appeal by the offender was dismissed.

Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO) Not Appropriate

In a report dated 27 August 2025 from the Institute of Mental Health (“the IMH Report”) , Dr Soh Keng Chuan (“Dr Soh”) opined as follows:

(a) The Accused has persistent depressive disorder and voyeuristic disorder;

(b) His voyeuristic disorder would have substantially contributed to the alleged offending by reducing his ability to exercise self-control;

(c) His persistent depressive disorder has no causal or contributory link with the alleged offending, given how these symptoms have been present over most of his life and this does not correspond with the offending behaviour.

The Prosecution objected to the Defence’s submission for an MTO suitability report to be called in order for the Court to consider imposing an MTO on the Accused in sentencing. The Prosecution relied on the High Court case of GCX v PP [2019] 3 SLR 1325 (“GCX”) at [47] to submit that the High Court was clear in that case that an MTO should only be ordered where rehabilitation was the dominant sentencing principle on the facts of a particular case. Further, in assessing an offender’s rehabilitative potential, there was still a need to balance rehabilitation with other sentencing principles such as deterrence, retribution and prevention: GCX at [32]-[33]. MTO suitability report should only be called if it is clear that there were sufficient facts showing that the offender had some rehabilitative potential, and that rehabilitation would not be completely outweighed by other sentencing considerations: GCX at [37] and [39]-[41].

The Prosecution submitted that in the present case, any rehabilitative potential in the Accused must give way to the need for deterrence. Deterrence is generally the dominant sentencing consideration for voyeuristic offences. In Nicholas Tan at [42]-[48], the High Court stated that it would be rare for the emphasis in sentencing to shift from deterrence to rehabilitation even where the offender has demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform. The Court further held that the custodial threshold is typically crossed in voyeurism cases, given the intrinsic seriousness of the offences.

The Prosecution further pointed out that in PP v Chong Hou En [2015] SGHC 69 (“Chong Hou En”), the High Court accepted that voyeuristic disorders do not deprive a person of self-control in the way an impulse-control disorder does (at [61]). The High Court further noted that if the nature of the mental disorder was such that the individual retained substantially the mental ability or capacity to control or refrain himself when he committed the criminal acts but he instead chose not to exercise his self-control, and if it was also shown that punishment will be effective in instilling fear in him and thereby deterring him from committing the same criminal acts in the future, little mitigating value will be attributed to the mental disorder (at [28]).

Hence, the Prosecution maintained that an MTO was not an appropriate sentence in the present case and that a sentence of imprisonment would be more appropriate to give effect to the need for deterrence.

Mitigation and Defence’s Submissions on Sentence

MTO Suitability Report Ought to be Called

Based on the findings by Dr Soh in the IMH Report as set out in [21] above, the Defence submitted that the Court should call for an MTO suitability report on the Accused. The Defence similarly relied on GCX (at [32]) to submit that such a report should be called only where an offender has some rehabilitative potential and that the Accused fit this criteria for the follow reasons:

(a) He was a first-time offender;

(b) The offence was a one-off act with no planning or pre-meditation involved;

(c) There was a direct causal link between the Accused’s voyeuristic disorder and the commission of the offence as the IMH Report states that the disorder “would have substantially contributed to the alleged offending by reducing his ability to exercise self-control”;

(d) Dr Soh was of the view that the Accused “has good rehabilitative prospects, being susceptible to treatment.” Specifically, Dr Soh states that the Accused was “help-seeking and willing to commit to treatment”, with “low-to-moderate risk of recidivism”. The Defence pointed out the Accused had attended seven sessions of clinical treatment with IMH before December 2025, with two more sessions scheduled in December 2025.

In its Supplemental Submissions on Sentence , the Defence submitted that Chong Hou En did not stand for the general proposition that offender diagnosed with voyeuristic disorder would be ineligible to be sentenced to an MTO as taking this position would conflate two distinct questions of:

(a) How much mitigatory weight can be accorded to such a diagnosis; and

(b) Whether such a diagnosis qualifies as a “psychiatric condition which is susceptible for treatment” under section 339(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”).

The Defence submitted that in Chong Hou En, little mitigating weight was given for the offender’s diagnosis of voyeuristic disorder as the High Court held that the disorder falls under a genus of mental disorders with a circular diagnosis (i.e., where the “the diagnosis is based on the acting out of the criminal behaviour while the criminal behaviour is explicable by the presence of the mental disorder”- Chong Hou En at [26]). However, the Defence submitted that this nevertheless left open the question of whether such a diagnosis can still form the basis of an MTO as a “psychiatric condition which is susceptible for treatment” under section 339(3)(a) of the CPC. It was the Defence’s position that the three requirements under section 339(3) of the CPC that:

(a) The offender is suffering from a “psychiatric condition which is susceptible to treatment”;

(b) The offender is suitable for treatment; and

(c) The psychiatric condition of the offender is one of the contributing factors for his committing the offence.

are findings to be made by the appointed psychiatrist in the MTO suitability report and are entirely evidentiary and clinical in nature.

Hence, the Defence submitted that notwithstanding the fact the offender’s voyeuristic disorder was given little weight in Chong Hou En, the specific proposition that an offender diagnosed with such disorder can in theory be granted an MTO has never been expressly rejected.

Other Community-Based Sentences (“CBS”)

In the event that the Court decided not to call for an MTO suitability report or if such a report was called but the Accused was found not suitable for an MTO, the Defence submitted for CBS in the form of a 14-day Short Detention Order combined with a Community Service Order, on the ground that the Accused was still relatively young, who was 25 years-old at the time of the offence and had just completed his National Service. He was also a first-time offender, and the offence was a one-off.

In the Worst Case, a Fine or No More Than One Week’s Imprisonment

In the event that MTO and other CBS were found not suitable for the Accused, the Defence submitted that under the Nicholas Tan sentencing framework, the sentence of five to eight weeks’ imprisonment proposed by the Prosecution was manifestly excessive.

Under Step 1, the Defence also submitted that the Accused’s case came under the low harm and low culpability category. Based on the mitigating factors as highlighted in [26] above, and that the Accused had surrendered himself, fully cooperated with the authorities and eventually pleaded guilty to the offence under Stage 1 of the Guidelines, the Defence submitted for a fine to be imposed, or a sentence of not more than one week’s imprisonment.

In support of its above submission on sentence, the Defence referred to PP v Lim Pang Boon Adrian Michael [2024] SGMC 64 (“Adrian Michael Lim”), where the offender pleaded guilty to, inter alia, a charge of attempted voyeurism when he hid in a cubicle in a female toilet and tried to photograph the victim relieving herself in the adjacent cubicle with her buttock exposed. However, the victim spotted the offender’s mobile phone at the top of her cubicle with the camera facing downwards. She immediately left the female toilet before the offender was able to take any photograph of her in her private act. The offender was charged under section 377BB(3), punishable under section 377BB(7) and read with section 512 of the Code for his attempted voyeurism act. He was sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment for this charge (Adrian Michael Lim at [23]). His appeal against sentence was dismissed by the High Court.

In referring to the global sentence of one month and three weeks’ imprisonment term imposed on the offender in Adrian Michael Lim, the Defence submitted that Adrian Michael Lim was a “much more aggravated case” and that the Accused’s offence was “much less egregious on all aspects” and hence did not warrant a similar sentence.

My Decision

The Sentencing Framework in Nicholas Tan

In the present case, the parties agreed that the sentencing framework in Nicholas Tan was applicable as the offence which the Accused was charged with, one under section 377BB(3) of the Code was also punishable under section 377BB(7) of the Code, as in Nicholas Tan. I agreed with the parties.

On the dominant sentencing consideration for such offences, the High Court in Nicholas Tan held as follows (at [42]):

“.. deterrence is generally the dominant sentencing consideration for this offence, and it would rarely be the case that emphasis would shift away from deterrence to rehabilitation even where the s 377BB(4) PC adult offender has demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform..”

The High Court elaborated on the rationales for the above holding, some of which are set out below , which similarly apply to an offence under section 377BB(3) of the Code:

(a) (I)n every case, the impact of a s 377BB(4) offence extends beyond the particular victim concerned because it offends the sensibilities of the general public and triggers unease. Bearing in mind that the offence entails the operation of an equipment with the intention of observing the victim’s private region in circumstances where that region would not otherwise be visible and where the victim did not give his or her consent, it goes without saying that the commission of a s 377BB(4) offence involves an appalling attempt to invade the victim’s privacy. At its core, a s-377BB(4) offence is an affront of our society’s fundamental value that no woman or man should have to suffer the indignity of having his or her modesty outraged or insulted… Adding to the public disquiet occasioned by the transgression of our society’s fundamental belief, the discovery of a surreptitiously committed s 377BB(4) offence also affects the extent to which members of the public feel safe as they go about their daily life. This is the case regardless of whether the offence was committed in a private location, such as the victim’s own home, or a public location, such as an escalator in a shopping mall. In light of these consequences, it behoves the sentencing court to send a stern and unequivocal signal, on behalf of society, that s 377BB(4) offences will not be tolerated;

(b) (T)he need to censure s 377BB(4) offence with deterrent sentences is augmented by the increasing prevalence of voyeurism offences… The rise in the number of voyeurism offences is in part attributable to technological advancements that have facilitated the ease with which such offences can be stealthily committed. For instance, the production of cameras and lenses which are small enough to be placed discreetly below women’s dresses and skirts has made it much easier for a s 377BB(4) offence offender to observe the victim’s private parts without being caught. In these circumstances, the imposition of stiff sentences would be both timely and necessary in curbing the rising number of voyeurism offences;

(c) Finally, keeping the emphasis on deterrence in most s 377BB(4) offence cases, even where the adult offender has demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform, accords with Parliament’s intention to place deterrence at the fore for such offences…. Although Parliament has recognised that an adult offender’s strong propensity for reform may justify placing rehabilitation as the primary sentencing consideration, it has indicated in no uncertain terms that the general sentencing position in respect of adult offenders who commit sexual offences, including voyeurism, is to prioritise deterrence over rehabilitation, and that only exceptional circumstances may justify deviation from this general position… This supports (the High Court’s) view that it would be rare for the emphasis to shift from deterrence to rehabilitation on the ground of the adult s 377BB(4) offence offender’s strong propensity for reform. That is not to say that this will never be the case. It will, however, take a truly exceptional case to warrant this.

Whether an MTO Suitability Report Should be Called

While I did not disagree with the Defence’s submission that Chong Hou En did not stand for the general proposition that offender diagnosed with voyeuristic disorder would be ineligible to be sentenced to an MTO (see [27] above), with the above sentencing rationales for such offence in mind, I was not satisfied that the Accused had even demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform, let alone showing that there were exceptional circumstances in his case that may justify deviation of the emphasis in his sentencing from deterrence to rehabilitation.

First, in Chong Hou En, the High Court has held (at [42]) that voyeuristic disorder was ultimately not an impulse control disorder, but “merely a clinical description of what is essentially a perverse behavioural option and it does not deprive a person of his self-control' (at [63]). It falls under a genus of mental disorders with a circular diagnosis, i.e., where the “the diagnosis is based on the acting out of the criminal behaviour while the criminal behaviour is explicable by the presence of the mental disorder” (at [26]). Indeed, this was recognised by Dr Soh who, having certified that the Accused’s voyeuristic disorder would have “substantially contributed” to the offending by reducing his ability to exercise self-control, he candidly noted the circularity of the condition, whereby the extent of the Accused’s engagement in the criminal acts would correlate with the severity of his condition.

Second, the Accused was first seen in IMH in October 2015, almost ten years ago before the current offences for voyeuristic behaviour in his secondary school. Dr Soh concluded that the Accused has “low-to-moderate risk of recidivism” considering how the current offence took place despite twice being placed on probation by his school for his voyeuristic acts dating back to his adolescence. In the circumstances, although the Accused had attended seven sessions of clinical treatment with IMH before December 2025 (see [26(d)] above), I was of the view that the Accused did not demonstrate an extremely strong propensity for reform, let alone showing that there were exceptional circumstances in his case that may justify deviation of the emphasis in his sentencing from deterrence to rehabilitation.

Therefore, deterrence should remain as the dominant sentencing emphasis in the Accused’s case. Hence, applying the balancing exercise as set out in GCX (see [22] above), I was not satisfied that there were sufficient facts showing that the Accused had some rehabilitative potential, and that rehabilitation would not be completely outweighed by the need for deterrence for the present offence. I declined to call for an MTO suitability report on the Accused. For the same reason, other CBS option was also not appropriate.

The Application of the Sentencing Framework in Nicholas Tan

Applying the sentencing framework in Nicholas Tan, under Step 1 on offence-specific factors, both the Prosecution and Defence were in consensus that the present case fell under the low harm-low culpability category. I found no reason to disagree with the parties’ consensus for the following reasons:

Harm

On the invasion of the victim’s privacy, the Victim was showering in the nude when the Accused committed the offence. Although the intrusiveness of invasion of the Victim’s privacy was potentially high, there was no evidence as to which part of the Victim’s naked body did the Accused manage to capture as it was a three-second video recording which the Accused had deleted when the Victim shouted at him and he ran away. Hence, there was also no retention of the video recording and no possibility for the potential repeated invasions of the Victim’s privacy by the Accused viewing the footage repeatedly.

The Victim was in shock, upon seeing the Accused’s hand holding his handphone and pointing it towards her, and she shouted at the Accused (see [10] above). Hence, objectively, it can be inferred that there was emotional harm suffered by the Victim upon discovering the voyeuristic act by the Accused.

Culpability

In terms of culpability, I agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused’s culpability was increased as he knew that the Victim did not consent to being recorded while she was showering as they were total strangers.

There was also an element of a betrayal of trust involved. As a concierge of the Serviced Apartment, the Accused was supposed to look after the interest of its residents. Instead, the Accused betrayed that trust reposed in him by his employer and the residents by committing the present offence.

Under Step 2 and 3, the court is to identify the applicable indicative sentencing range before proceeding to identify the appropriate starting point within that range. Under the low harm and low culpability category of the sentencing framework, the sentence range is from a fine up to four months’ imprisonment. However, the High Court in Nicholas Tan made it clear (at [86]) that such voyeurism cases will typically cross the custodial threshold given the intrinsic seriousness of the offence. Hence, a sentence of fine only as submitted by the Defence would not be appropriate in the present case.

In view of the offence-specific factors set out above, I agreed with the Prosecution’s submission that the applicable indicative sentencing range should be in the mid-point of the low harm and low culpability category of the sentencing framework, in the region of seven to 12 weeks’ imprisonment. I then proceeded to identify the appropriate starting point of ten weeks’ imprisonment within that range, considering the offence-specific factors discussed above.

Under Step 4 of the sentencing framework, the Accused had the Criminal Trespass charge taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. On the other hand, I took into consideration the following mitigating factors in the Accused’s favour:

(a) He had pleaded guilty at Stage 1 of the Guidelines and therefore entitled to 30% sentencing discount from the starting sentence of ten weeks’ imprisonment;

(b) His voyeuristic disorder which substantially contributed to the commission of the offence by reducing his ability to exercise self-control. In Nicholas Tan, psychological factors with causal link to the commission of the offence was one of the mitigating factors which the court can take into consideration at this step of the sentencing framework (at [87]).

(c) The efforts made by the Accused in seeking treatment for his voyeuristic disorder, having attended seven sessions of clinical treatment with IMH before December 2025, with two more sessions scheduled in December 2025 (see [26(d)] above).

Taking into consideration the above aggravating and mitigating factors, I sentenced the Accused eventually to six weeks’ imprisonment.

Comparison with Precedent Cases

The above sentence was in line with the precedent cases of PP v Aung Myint (six weeks’ imprisonment) and PP v Ryan You Jun Chao (seven weeks’ imprisonment) set out in [20] above.

On the case of Adrian Michael Lim referred to by the Defence (see [33] above), I note that it was only an attempted case by the offender to try to photograph the victim relieving herself in the adjacent cubicle. Further, only her buttock was exposed, as opposed to the Victim in the present case who was fully naked as she was showering. The Accused also managed to take a three-second video of the Victim showering. Hence, for the individual attempted voyeurism charge faced by the offender in Adrian Michael Lim, I was not able to agree with the Defence that it was a “much more aggravated case” (see [34] above). The overall culpability of the offender in Adrian Michael Lim may be higher, as the offender, in his attempt to get away after his voyeurism act was spotted by the victim, drove his car in such a rash manner that he caused hurt to the complainant and endangering the safety of another person. However, as regards his individual culpability for his voyeurism charge, it was lower than that in the Accused’s case as it was an attempted act and only the buttock of the victim was exposed. Hence, the sentence on the Accused ought to be higher than the three weeks’ imprisonment imposed in Adrian Michael Lim for the attempted voyeurism charge.

Conclusion

The Accused, being dissatisfied with the above sentence, has appealed against the same. The Accused is currently on bail, pending this appeal.