Public Prosecutor v JGO [2026] SGDC 154

District Judge Lee Lit Cheng:

Introduction

To strengthen protection for vulnerable groups in society and deter crimes against vulnerable victims, Parliament introduced a set of provisions in the Penal Code to double the maximum punishment for offences committed against victims who are more vulnerable due to their mental or physical disabilities (s 74A), their young age of under 14 years (s 74B), their intimate relationship with the offender (s 74C), and their close relationship with the offender (s 74D). The enhanced punishments apply to offences committed on or after 1 January 2020.

In 2025, the Accused repeatedly molested two of his young granddaughters, who were members of the same household as him. He pleaded guilty to two charges of outrage of modesty punishable under s 354(2) read with s 74D(2) of the Penal Code 1871 (“Penal Code”).

Based on the decision of the High Court in Public Prosecutor v DGU (Criminal Case No 30 of 2025) (“DGU”), I applied the sentencing framework in GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2018] 3 SLR 1048 (“GBR”) for the offence of aggravated outrage of modesty against a person under 14 years of age under s 354(2) of the Penal Code, adjusted by an appropriate multiplier for the enhancement under s 74D(2) of the Penal Code.

The Accused was sentenced to 31 months and two weeks’ imprisonment for each charge. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 62 months and four weeks’ imprisonment.

Facts

The 64-year-old Accused lived together with the two victims and other family members. The victims were close to the Accused and regularly played board games and mobile phone games with him.

In 2025, the Accused started to feel sexually aroused by his granddaughters. He targeted the two victims separately, getting each of them to sit next to him to play mobile phone games before molesting them while they were distracted.

The first victim, V1, was between nine to ten years of age. On multiple occasions, the Accused massaged V1’s breasts over her clothing and rubbed her vaginal area skin-to-skin.

The second victim, V2, was between eight to nine years of age. On multiple occasions, the Accused rubbed V2’s vaginal area both over her clothing and skin-to-skin.

The offences came to light in January 2026 when V2 confided in a social worker that the Accused had touched her private parts.

The law

Section 354(2) of the Penal Code provides that a person who commits an offence of outrage of modesty against any person under 14 years of age shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.

Pursuant to s 74D(2) of the Penal Code, the prescribed punishment for the charges against the Accused was doubled because he was in a close relationship with the two victims, as they lived in the same household (s 74D(5)(a) of the Penal Code). Consequently, the maximum punishment was enhanced from five to ten years’ imprisonment.

The GBR sentencing framework for s 354(2) of the Penal Code

Based on the GBR sentencing framework which applies to offences punishable under s 354(2) of the Penal Code, the court should first consider three categories of offence-specific factors:

(a) the degree of sexual exploitation;

(b) the circumstances of the offence; and

(c) the harm caused to the victim.

The court should then place the offence within one of the three sentencing bands spanning the entire continuum up to the statutory maximum punishment of five years’ imprisonment:

Band

Sentencing range

Band 1: Comprises cases at the lowest end of the spectrum of seriousness which do not present any (or at most one) of the aggravating factors, and do not involve the intrusion into the victim’s private parts.

Less than one year’s imprisonment. Caning is generally not imposed, although the possibility of caning is not excluded altogether.

Band 2: Comprises cases where two or more aggravating factors are present. At the lower end of the band would be cases in which there was contact with the private parts of the victim over clothing. At the higher end of the band would be cases involving skin-to-skin touching of the victim’s private parts or sexual organs.

One to three years’ imprisonment.

Caning will nearly always be imposed with a suggested starting point of at least three strokes of the cane.

Band 3: Comprises cases which, by reason of the number of aggravating factors, present themselves as the most serious instances of aggravated outrage of modesty. These would include cases involving the exploitation of a particularly vulnerable victim, a serious abuse of a position of trust, and/or the use of violence or force on the victim.

Three to five years’ imprisonment.

Caning ought to be imposed, and the suggested starting point would be at least six strokes of the cane.

Finally, the court considers the offender-specific aggravating and mitigating factors to arrive at the sentence.

Decision of the High Court in DGU

The offender in DGU pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual assault by penetration (“SAP”) punishable under s 376(3) read with s 74D(2) of the Penal Code. The offender had digitally penetrated his 14-year-old stepdaughter's vagina without her consent. The sentencing framework in Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 1015 (“Pram Nair”) applies to the offence of digital-vaginal penetration under s 376(3) of the Penal Code, which provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years. On account of the close relationship between the offender and the victim in DGU, the maximum punishment was doubled to 40 years’ imprisonment.

In DGU, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng adapted the sentencing framework in GFX v Public Prosecutor [2024] 4 SLR 1423 (“GFX”) (for the offence under s 325 read with s 74B(2) of the Penal Code) and applied it together with the underlying primary sentencing framework set out in Pram Nair for the offence of digital-vaginal penetration.

Hoo J held that the following sentencing framework should be adopted for offences of digital-vaginal penetration under s 376(3) read with s 74D(2) of the Penal Code (at [20] of the Oral Judgement of DGU):

To avoid double counting, Hoo J stated that “where the sentence enhancing factor under ss 73 and 74A-74D of the Penal Code is also a relevant aggravating factor under the primary sentencing framework, the latter should be discounted to avoid double counting” (at [10] of the Oral Judgment of DGU).

Specifically where s 74D(2) of the Penal Code is engaged, Hoo J held that the offence-specific factor of “abuse of position and breach of trust” overlaps with the rationale for introducing s 74D(2) of the Penal Code, which is to more harshly punish offenders who abuse their close relationship with the victim to exploit their trust and abuse them (at [14] of the Oral Judgment of DGU). Parliament’s intent may be seen in the following speech by Minister K Shanmugam when he introduced this provision in Parliament (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (6 May 2019) vol 94 (K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs):

Hoo J further held that the quantum of multiplier should be determined based on the extent to which the victim was unable to protect himself/herself due to the close relationship with the offender (at [16]-[18] of the Oral Judgment in DGU):

Applying the sentencing framework in DGU, Hoo J found that an indicative starting point of seven years’ imprisonment in the low end of Band 1 of the Pram Nair framework was appropriate on the facts of the case. She further found that, to a moderate degree, the 14-year-old victim was unable to protect herself from the harm due to her close relationship with the offender, who was her stepfather living in the same household as her. During the offence, she did not react and did not dare to look at the offender as she was afraid that he would scold her and wake her mother. She however messaged the offender that night and the following morning to register her protest against his action. Hoo J applied a multiplier of 50%, arriving at a sentence of ten years and six months’ imprisonment.

On account of another charge taken into consideration, the sentence was uplifted to 11 years’ imprisonment. Applying a 30% reduction for his early plea of guilt, Hoo J sentenced the offender to seven years and eight months’ imprisonment. No caning was ordered as the offender was 59 years of age. Hoo J did not find it necessary to impose an additional three months’ imprisonment under s 325(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”) in lieu of four strokes of the cane.

Adapting the DGU framework for s 354(2) read with s 74D(2) Penal Code

The DGU sentencing framework, which applies to offences of sexual assault involving penetration punishable under s 376(3) read with s 74D(2) of the Penal Code, is also relevant and may be adapted to apply the present charges against the Accused for the offence of outrage of modesty punishable under s 354(2) read with s 74D(2) of the Penal Code.

I adapted the DGU sentencing framework for an offence punishable under s 354(2) read with s 74D(2) of the Penal Code as follows:

(a) Step one: Consider the applicable band which the case falls into under the GBR sentencing framework by considering the offence-specific factors, less any factor relating to abuse of position and breach of trust, to avoid double counting.

(b) Step two: Determine the applicable multiplier, if any, by considering the extent of power imbalance in the “close relationship” (which would indicate the extent to which the victim was unable to protect himself/herself from harm due to the close relationship with the offender):

(i) High power imbalance: 67-100%;

(ii) Moderate power imbalance: 34-66%; and

(iii) Low power imbalance: 1-33%.

(c) Step three: Adjust the sentence for offender-specific factors.

(d) Step four: Apply the appropriate plead guilty sentencing discount (if applicable).

Applying the adapted DGU framework to the present case

At step one, I applied the GBR sentencing framework and considered the offence-specific factors, excluding any factor relating to abuse of position and breach of trust.

First, I assessed that the degree of sexual exploitation against both V1 and V2 was high, as there was skin-to-skin contact with both victims’ vaginal area. The Accused had also massaged V1’s breasts over her clothing. The contact with both victims was not fleeting.

Next, I considered the circumstances of the offences. The offences were clearly premeditated. The Accused felt tempted to perform sexual acts on the victims and took deliberate steps to get them to sit next to him so that he could sexually assault them while they were playing mobile phone games. He employed the same modus operandi to molest the victims on multiple occasions.

I also considered the fact that the victims were only between eight to ten years of age at the material time and were therefore more vulnerable due to their young age. As stated in GBR at [29(f)], even though s 354(2) of the Penal Code is a provision that deals with the outrage of a modesty of a child below the age of 14, the aggravating factor of young age applies where the victim is materially younger than the stipulated age ceiling, and in a graduated manner depending on how much younger the victim is.

To be clear, I did not consider the abuse of position and breach of trust arising from the grandfather-granddaughter relationship at this stage, so as to avoid double counting.

Finally, I considered the harm caused to the victims. No information was provided on harm suffered by V1. V2 suffered some psychological harm, experiencing flashbacks of the sexual assaults and being fearful of the Accused.

I assessed that both charges fell within the upper end of Band 2 of the GBR framework with a sentencing range of one to three years’ imprisonment. While the degree of sexual intrusion was higher for V1, V2 was younger and suffered some psychological harm. On balance, a starting sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was appropriate for both charges.

At step two, I determined the quantum of the multiplier to be applied. The Accused is the biological grandfather of the victims and lived together with them. The close relationship between the Accused and the victims, fostered through regular time spent playing games together, rendered them vulnerable due to the trust they had placed in him. The Accused had clearly exploited that trust that. He also abused his position, which afforded him easy access to the victims. I assessed that there was a moderate degree of exploitation, abuse and manipulation in the relationship, and a multiplier of 50% was appropriate. The sentence for each charge was accordingly uplifted to 45 months’ imprisonment.

At step three, I considered the offender-specific factors. The Accused had dated and unrelated antecedents, which I did not take into account. There were no other factors to warrant any adjustment to the sentences.

At step four, I applied a 30% reduction in sentence as the Accused’s plea of guilt fell within Stage 1 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas. The Accused was sentenced to 31 months and two weeks’ imprisonment for each charge.

Both sentences were ordered to run consecutively as the charges related to different victims, resulting in a total sentence of 62 months and four weeks’ imprisonment.

As the Accused was above 50 years of age, he could not be caned. Caning would ordinarily have been imposed as there was skin-to-skin intrusion of the victims’ private parts, and the suggested starting point in GBR (at [33]) was at least three strokes.

On account of the lengthy sentence imposed, I did not find it necessary to compensate for the lost deterrent and retributive effect of caning by imposing an additional term of imprisonment under s 325(2) of the CPC.

Conclusion

The Accused exploited the trust and vulnerability of his granddaughters by repeatedly molesting them within the sanctity of their shared home, deliberately leveraging his close relationship with the victims to gain access to them. The enhanced punishment framework under s 74D(2) of the Penal Code exists precisely to address such cases. The sentence imposed in this case was higher than those typically ordered in cases applying the GBR framework, and rightly so, given that the prescribed punishment is doubled by the operation of s 74D(2). The total sentence of 62 months and four weeks’ imprisonment reflects the serious nature of the offences and Parliament’s clear intent that offenders who exploit close relationships to harm their victims ought to be punished more severely.

Lee Lit Cheng District Judge

Cheah Wenjie (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Public Prosecutor;

The Accused unrepresented.