Public Prosecutor v JKA [2026] SGMC 99

District Judge Justin Yeo:

Introduction

Over a period of approximately two years, JKA (“the Accused”) intentionally recorded more than 140 videos of the covered buttocks or genital regions of female victims from beneath their skirts. This figure excludes voyeuristic videos that he had recorded overseas, or videos that he had deleted. Although he did not employ particularly sophisticated equipment or means of carrying out the offences, his offending was persistent and repeated, and included multiple voyeuristic videos not just of strangers but also of his female colleagues. The offences were committed for his personal sexual gratification.

There is a gag order prohibiting the publication of any information that is likely to reveal the identities of the Accused, his victims, or his workplace (which will be referred to as “the Workplace”) where multiple acts of voyeurism took place.

Overview of Charges

The Accused pleaded guilty to four proceeded charges, as follows:

(a) MAC-902009-2026 (“Cold Storage Charge”). The Cold Storage Charge is a charge under s 377BB(4) of the Penal Code (“PC”), punishable under PC s 377BB(7). This concerned the Accused intentionally operating his mobile phone to observe a female victim’s (“V1”) covered genital region from underneath her skirt, while knowing that she did not consent to this. The incident took place at the Cold Storage supermarket located at 46 Kim Yam Road (“Cold Storage”).

(b) MAC-900523-2026 (“2024 Amalgamated Charge”). The 2024 Amalgamated Charge is a charge under PC s 377BB(5), punishable under PC s 377BB(7) and, by reason of amalgamation pursuant to s 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”), punishable under CPC s 124(8)(a)(ii). This concerned the Accused using his mobile phone to record 32 videos of the covered buttocks of female victims on 32 occasions between January and December 2024, knowing that they did not consent to such recording.

(c) MAC-902008-2026 (“2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge”). The 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge is akin to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, save that it comprised seven videos of seven unknown female victims on at least seven occasions between 1 December 2025 and 19 January 2026.

(d) MAC-900529-2026 (“Workplace Amalgamated Charge”). The Workplace Amalgamated Charge is akin to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, save that it comprised 70 videos of multiple female victims on 70 occasions between January and December 2025, at locations including the Workplace and a nearby MRT station (“the Station”).

The Accused admitted and consented to eight other charges being taken into consideration (“TIC”) for the purposes of sentencing. Grouped in accordance with the proceeded charges with which I will take these TIC charges into consideration, the TIC charges are as follows:

(a) MAC-902010-2026 (“TIC Cold Storage Charge”). This TIC charge will be considered with the Cold Storage Charge. It occurred at the same location about eight minutes before the events in the Cold Storage Charge, and involved the Accused’s intentional operation of his mobile phone to observe another female victim’s (“V2”) covered genital region from underneath her skirt.

(b) There are five TIC charges that will be considered with the 2024 Amalgamated Charge:

(i) MAC-900524-2026 (“TIC 2025 Amalgamated Charge”). The TIC 2025 Amalgamated Charge is akin to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, save that it comprised 18 videos of multiple unknown female victims on 18 occasions between January and December 2025.

(ii) MAC-902011-2026 (“TIC Obscene Film Charge 1”). The TIC Obscene Film Charge 1 is a charge under s 29(1) of the Films Act 1981 (“Films Act”), for the Accused’s making of an obscene film, knowing the film to be obscene. The film was recorded using his mobile phone, and captured a female subject performing fellatio on him on 13 January 2026 at about 9.32pm at Hotel LYF Bugis located at 200 Middle Road.

(iii) MAC-902012-2026 (“TIC Obscene Film Charge 2”). The TIC Obscene Film Charge 2 is akin to the TIC Obscene Film Charge 1 and occurred at the same location, save that it concerned the filming of the Accused’s sexual intercourse with a female subject about nine minutes after the filming of the fellatio mentioned above.

(iv) MAC-900526-2026 (“TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 1”). The TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 1 is a charge under Films Act s 30(1) for the Accused’s possession of 18 obscene videos.

(v) MAC-900525-2026 (“TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 2”). The TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 2 is a charge under PC s 377BD(1)(a), punishable under PC s 377BD(2), for possession of 23 video recordings of multiple female persons, knowing that the recordings were obtained through the commission of offences under PC s 377BB(5). These voyeuristic videos were recorded by the Accused overseas.

(c) There are two TIC charges that will be considered with the Workplace Amalgamated Charge:

(i) MAC-900528-2026 (“TIC Workplace Amalgamated Charge”). The TIC Workplace Amalgamated Charge is akin to the Workplace Amalgamated Charge, save that it comprised 15 videos of multiple female victims on 15 occasions between January and December 2024, at locations including the Workplace and the Station.

(ii) MAC-900527-2026 (“TIC Workplace V3 Charge”). The TIC Workplace V3 Charge is a charge under PC s s 377BB(5), punishable under PC s 377BB(7), concerning the Accused’s use of his mobile phone to intentionally record a video of his female colleague’s (“V3”) covered buttocks from underneath her skirt sometime between 3 July 2023 and 3 May 2025, knowing that she did not consent to such recording. To be clear, the TIC Workplace V3 Charge does not overlap with the subject matter of the Workplace Amalgamated Charge or the TIC Workplace Amalgamated Charge.

Summary of Decision

Factoring in a sentencing reduction on account of the Accused’s plea of guilt within Stage 1 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s “Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas” (“Guilty Plea Guidelines”), the sentences for the respective charges are as follows:

The imprisonment terms for the Cold Storage Charge, the 2024 Amalgamated Charge and the Workplace Amalgamated Charge shall run consecutively, with the imprisonment term for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge running concurrently.

I now provide the reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

The facts covered in this judgment are based on the Statement of Facts, to which the Accused admitted without qualification.

The Accused was first arrested on 3 May 2025. On that day, at about 4.45pm, a female victim was browsing for books at the Kinokuniya bookstore located at 391 Orchard Road. The Accused spotted the victim and decided to record an upskirt video of her. He crouched down at a shelf near the victim, slipped his mobile phone under her dress and between her legs, with his mobile phone recording a video the entire time. The victim felt the Accused’s mobile phone bump against her right ankle and looked down. She saw the Accused holding his mobile phone camera pointing up her dress, with the back camera of the mobile phone pointing into her dress. She noticed that the Accused was pretending to look for books while he was recording the upskirt video. When the Accused saw that the victim had seen him record the video, he retracted his hand and walked away. The victim followed him and observed that he was trying to get close to other women in the bookstore. She approached the bookstore staff to inform them of what she had observed. The security staff at the bookstore apprehended the Accused and lodged a police report.

The Accused was arrested that day and released on police bail on 4 May 2025. He admitted to recording an upskirt video of the victim on 3 May 2025, in addition to at least four other victims who were at the bookstore that day, but had deleted the videos when he noticed that someone was approaching him.

Facts relating to the Cold Storage Charge and the Accused’s second arrest

On 15 January 2026, at about 9.20pm, three sisters (V1, V2, and their sister (“Sister”)), their mother (“Mother”), and V2’s boyfriend (“V2’s Boyfriend”) were at the Cold Storage. The Accused was also at the Cold Storage at that time, where he decided to record voyeuristic upskirt videos.

At about 9.29pm, V2 and V2’s Boyfriend were between the “Baby Toiletries” and “Body Care” aisle. V2 was wearing a black dress. The Accused walked towards them while pretending to look at products along the aisle. At 9.30pm, while V2 and V2’s Boyfriend were looking at products at the “Baby Toiletries” aisle, the Accused squatted beside her and used his mobile phone to record an upskirt video by pointing his mobile phone towards her covered genital region. The Accused then walked several metres away and lingered around V2 and V2’s Boyfriend. At 9.31pm, V2 and V2’s Boyfriend walked past the Accused. He followed closely behind V2 and pointed his mobile phone camera under her skirt, towards her covered genital region, to record an upskirt video. He stopped when V2 and V2’s Boyfriend turned around.

The Accused remained in the Cold Storage after the above actions. At about 9.39pm, he spotted V1, who was shopping alone with a shopping cart. She was wearing a long white dress. The Accused walked towards her. When V1 turned towards the shelves of the “Body Care” section, the Accused quickly squatted down behind her and pointed his mobile phone camera under her dress, at her covered genital region, to record an upskirt video.

V1 noticed the Accused squatting very close to her and leaving in a hurry when she turned around. V1 found Sister and told her that the Accused may have recorded upskirt videos of V1. Later, V1 met with V2, V2’s Boyfriend, Sister and Mother outside the Cold Storage, and told them what had happened.

Mother, Sister and V2’s Boyfriend decided to confront the Accused, who was still in the Cold Storage at that time. V2’s Boyfriend asked the Accused to let him check the Accused’s mobile phone, and the Accused initially refused. However, after V2’s Boyfriend said that he would call the police, the Accused relented and allowed V2’s Boyfriend, Sister and Mother to check his mobile phone. V2’s Boyfriend asked the Accused to open the hidden folder on his mobile phone. The Accused said that he would prefer that Sister look at it instead, as it contained his sex tapes. Sister confirmed that the hidden folder only contained the Accused’s sex tapes. Sister then asked the Accused to open his “Recently Deleted” folder and saw video previews of V1’s dress. Sister thus started taking photographs of the Accused’s mobile phone. The Accused responded by apologising to Mother, Sister and V2’s Boyfriend, and begged them to “let him off”, saying that he would delete the videos he had recorded of V1 and V2.

Mother, Sister and V2’s Boyfriend then asked for the Accused’s identity card and took photographs of it. V2’s Boyfriend told the Accused to delete the videos that he had recorded of V1 and V2, and the Accused complied. The Accused left the Cold Storage thereafter.

On 16 January 2026 at around 12.48am, V1 lodged a police report stating that she had caught the Accused taking an upskirt photograph of her on the evening of 15 January 2026 at the Cold Storage, and that non-consensual photographs of V2 and other female victims were found on the Accused’s mobile phone.

V1 and V2 did not consent to the Accused recording upskirt videos of them. By virtue of his actions in [12]–[14] above, he had operated his mobile phone without their consent, with the intention of enabling him to observe their covered genital regions in circumstances where those regions would not otherwise have been visible to him. The Accused’s actions in taking voyeuristic upskirt videos of V1 and V2 were captured on the Cold Storage’s closed-circuit television footage, which were played in a sealed courtroom (as V1 and V2 were identifiable from the footage). The Accused had committed these offences knowing that he was being investigated for voyeurism offences, and was on police bail for voyeurism offences at that time (see [10] above).

The Accused was arrested on 19 January 2026 and has been held in police custody or remand since that date.

Facts relating to the 2024 and 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charges

Investigations revealed that between January and December 2024, the Accused had – on at least 32 occasions – intentionally recorded 32 videos of the covered buttocks of multiple unknown female victims at various locations in Singapore. Using his mobile phone, he recorded these videos from underneath the victims’ skirts in circumstances where their buttocks would not otherwise have been visible to him. He did so, knowing that none of the victims consented to his recording of the upskirt videos. This is the subject matter of the 2024 Amalgamated Charge.

Investigations also revealed that between 1 December 2025 and 19 January 2026, the Accused engaged in the same conduct on seven further occasions, intentionally recording seven videos of the covered buttocks of multiple unknown female victims who had not consented to his actions. This is the subject matter of the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge.

The Accused admitted that he had two mobile phones during the commission of the offences under the 2024 and 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charges – an iPhone 14 Pro, and an iPhone 16 Pro. He used the iPhone 16 Pro for recording upskirt videos of female victims he came across in places such as Kinokuniya bookstore, Daiso Orchard, Don Don Donki Somerset, and other supermarkets and locations in Singapore. He would store the videos in a hidden folder on his iPhone 16 Pro. He also recorded voyeuristic videos of two of the flatmates who lived with him. He would transfer the voyeuristic videos to his iPhone 14 Pro when the videos took up too much capacity in his iPhone 16 Pro.

The Accused also admitted that he had recorded these videos for his own sexual gratification. At least one of the videos in the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge was recorded on 19 January 2026, after he had already been caught by the group in relation to the Cold Storage Charge.

Facts relating to the Workplace Amalgamated Charge

Investigations revealed that the Accused had targeted female colleagues when he was at work, either at the Workplace or the Station. Specifically, he preyed on his female colleagues by recording the voyeuristic upskirt videos at various locations such as the office pantry, while he queued for a bus at the Workplace, or when he was taking the escalator at the Station.

Between January and December 2025, the Accused intentionally recorded 70 videos of the covered buttocks of multiple female victims at the Workplace or the Station. He used his mobile phone to record videos from underneath their skirts, in circumstances where their buttocks would not otherwise have been visible to him. He did so, knowing that none of the victims consented to his recording of the upskirt videos. This is the subject matter of the Workplace Amalgamated Charge.

Between January and December 2024, he intentionally recorded 15 videos of the covered buttocks of multiple female victims at the Workplace or the Station. He did so by using his mobile phone to record videos from underneath their skirts, in circumstances where their buttocks would not otherwise be visible to him. He did so, knowing that none of the victims consented to his recording of the upskirt videos. This is the subject matter of the TIC Workplace Amalgamated Charge.

Amongst multiple unknown female colleagues, at least nine female colleagues have been identified as victims of the Workplace Amalgamated Charge and the TIC Workplace Amalgamated Charge and are aware of the offences committed against them.

The Accused also admitted to recording a voyeuristic video of a tenth female colleague, V3, sometime between 3 July 2023 and 3 May 2025. Using his mobile phone, he recorded a video of her buttocks from underneath her skirt, knowing that she did not consent to the recording. This is the subject of the TIC Workplace V3 Charge.

The Law

Statutory Provisions

The offence-creating provisions for the proceeded charges are PC ss 377BB(4) and 377BB(5), which are punishable under PC s 377BB(7). The provisions are as follows:

In relation to the amalgamated charges (ie, the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge and the Workplace Amalgamated Charge, referred to collectively as the “Amalgamated Charges”), CPC ss 124(4) and 124(8)(a)(ii) apply. Under these provisions, for each of the Amalgamated Charges, the court may sentence the Accused to up to twice the amount of punishment to which he would otherwise have been liable.

The Nicholas Tan Sentencing Framework

It is undisputed that the applicable sentencing framework for all the proceeded charges is that established by the High Court in Tan Siew Chye Nicholas v Public Prosecutor [2023] 4 SLR 1223 (“Nicholas Tan”). Although the Nicholas Tan framework was developed in relation to an offence under PC s 377BB(4), which is the operative provision for the Cold Storage Charge, it applies equally to the remaining proceeded charges which were brought under PC s 377BB(5). I have offered five reasons for this position in Public Prosecutor v Loh Guang Ze [2026] SGDC 211 (“Loh Guang Ze”) at [98]. In essence, neither the legislative scheme nor the nature of the various voyeurism offences in PC s 377BB supports or requires the adoption of separate sentencing frameworks for the different manifestations of voyeurism.

The Nicholas Tan framework is based on the two-stage, five-step framework in Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor [2018] 4 SLR 609. I provided a brief outline of the Nicholas Tan framework in Loh Guang Ze at [96]. I reproduce an adapted and expanded form of that outline here:

(a) Step 1: Consider offence-specific factors to identify the level of harm caused by the offence, and the level of the offender’s culpability (Nicholas Tan at [64]).

(i) In relation to harm, relevant factors include the invasion of the victim’s privacy, the violation of the victim’s bodily integrity (in cases where the offender made physical contact with the victim in the course of the offence), and humiliation, alarm or distress where the victim was made aware of the offending conduct (Nicholas Tan at [65]–[75]).

(ii) In relation to culpability, relevant factors include whether the offender knew (or merely had reason to believe) that the victim had not consented to the observation or recording, the degree of premeditation and planning, stalking or following the victim, type and sophistication of equipment used and whether it was concealed, breach of relationship of trust with the victim, steps taken to evade detection, motivation for the offence, and persistence of the offending conduct that is the subject of the charge (Nicholas Tan at [76]–[81]).

(b) Step 2: Identify the applicable indicative sentencing range, based on the following sentencing matrix which applies to a first-time offender convicted after trial (Nicholas Tan at [83]):

(c) Step 3: Identify the appropriate starting point within the indicative sentencing range.

(d) Step 4: Consider offender-specific factors, both aggravating and mitigating. These are the well-settled factors that are generally applicable across all criminal offences (Nicholas Tan at [87]).

(e) Step 5: In a case where the offender has been convicted of multiple charges, the court will consider whether adjustments to the sentence for individual charges is required in view of the totality principle (Nicholas Tan at [88]).

The Prakash Framework for Amalgamated Charges

In relation to the Amalgamated Charges, the appropriate framework is found in Prakash s/o Mathivanan v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 SLR 1386 (“Prakash”). I have recently provided a brief outline of this framework in Loh Guang Ze at [100]. For ease of reference, I reproduce that outline here:

(a) At the first stage, the court identifies the punishment prescribed for a single instance of offending, ie, the “base offence” (Prakash at [42] and [129(a)]). The court applies the relevant sentencing framework or benchmark for the “base offence”, or draws on analogous precedents where no such framework or benchmark exists. The sentencing factors considered at this stage are offence-specific in nature, encompassing the harm caused and the manner and mode in which the offence was committed (Prakash at [42]).

(b) At the second stage, the court determines the appropriate starting point sentence for the amalgamated offence, based on a holistic assessment of the offence-specific factors bearing on the aggregate harm caused and the offender’s overall culpability over the entire course of conduct (Prakash at [43] and [129(b)]). The court has regard to the doubled punishment limit in CPC s 124(8)(a)(ii), and considers the following factors in this assessment:

(i) First, in addition to the culpability-related factors identified at the first stage, the court considers the duration and frequency of the offending conduct (Prakash at [45(a)] and [129(b)(i)]). Where an offender has repeated the offence multiple times over a sustained period, this demonstrates greater recalcitrance, which is an aggravating factor.

(ii) Second, in assessing the harm caused by the course of conduct, the court has regard to the factors identified at the first stage (Prakash at [45(b)] and [129(b)(ii)]).

(iii) Third, the court considers whether the nature of the aggregate offending warrants a different type of sentence altogether, such as crossing of the custodial threshold (Prakash at [45(c)] and [129(b)(iii)]).

(c) At the third stage, the court adjusts the starting point sentence to account for offender-specific aggravating and mitigating factors (Prakash at [46] and [129(c)]). These are the same factors as those applicable to non-amalgamated offences (Prakash at [46] and [129(c)]).

In the present case, neither the Prosecution nor the Defence applied the Prakash framework. Instead, both parties approached the Amalgamated Charges by making upward adjustments to the indicative starting point sentences at Step 3 of the Nicholas Tan framework. In my view, the correct approach is to apply the Prakash framework as the overarching sentencing framework (see Loh Guang Ze at [101]), given that this framework was established by the High Court specifically for the sentencing of amalgamated charges.

The Nicholas Tan framework should operate within the broader structure of the Prakash framework. Specifically, the first three steps of the Nicholas Tan framework ought primarily to guide the identification of punishment for the “base offence” at the Prakash first stage. The offender-specific factors at Step 4 of the Nicholas Tan framework may then be considered in tandem with the Prakash third stage. Finally, Step 5 of the Nicholas Tan framework would be the final step to ensure that the resulting global sentence is proportionate in cases involving multiple charges.

As explained in Loh Guang Ze at [102], this approach is warranted for the following two reasons:

(a) First, the sentencing matrix in Nicholas Tan spans only the sentencing range for a non-amalgamated charge. It should thus be applied to the “base offence” at the Prakash first stage. This will help avoid the risk of overlooking the full range of punishment for an amalgamated charge, which is up to twice the amount of punishment as explained in [30] above.

(b) Second, this approach preserves clarity in analysing the starting point sentences for the “base offence”. It better allows for comparison with precedent cases that involve non-amalgamated charges. It also promotes consistency and principled sentencing within a case involving multiple offences of a substantially similar nature, including a mix of non-amalgamated (ie, the Cold Storage Charge) and amalgamated charges (ie, the Amalgamated Charges). In the present case, for example, the sentences identified for the “base offences” in respect of the Amalgamated Charge (at [54], [66] and [77] below) were determined by reference to the analysis of the Cold Storage Charge (at [42]–[43] below).

The Cold Storage Charge

I now turn to consider the Cold Storage Charge.

Parties’ Arguments

Applying the Nicholas Tan framework, the Prosecution sought a sentence of two months’ imprisonment for the Cold Storage Charge. In the Prosecution’s submission:

(a) The starting point sentence should be two months’ imprisonment, for the following reasons:

(i) Harm was in the “moderate range of low”, for two reasons. First, because the Accused’s acts were intrusive (having taken videos of V1’s covered buttocks) with a significant loss of privacy to V1. Second, while the Accused did not retain the offending video(s), he had deleted them only because he was caught, confronted and asked to delete the offending video(s).

(ii) The Accused’s culpability was at the “highest end of low culpability”, for two reasons. First, the Accused had actual knowledge that V1 did not consent to him taking the upskirt video. Second, while he did not employ a deliberate plan in committing the offence, he had a modus operandi on how to do so and was opportunistic in committing the offence.

(b) A one-month uplift is warranted based on the severity of the Accused’s multiple TIC charges, and taking into consideration the that he committed the offence that is the subject matter of the Cold Storage Charge while on police bail and knowing that he was investigated for similar offending.

(c) The Accused should have a sentencing reduction given his plea of guilt at Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines. The resulting sentence is therefore two months’ imprisonment.

The Defence disagreed with this harm and culpability assessment. In the Defence’s submission, the appropriate sentence for the 2024 Amalgamated Charge is five weeks’ imprisonment, for the following reasons:

(a) The starting point sentence should be six weeks’ imprisonment:

(i) Harm was at the “lower end of Low Harm”, because it was a single instance of observing V1’s covered buttocks, and was essentially “the basic prerequisite manifestation” of offences under PC s 377BB(4). In addition, the voyeuristic material was neither retained nor circulated.

(ii) The Accused’s culpability was at the “middle of Low Culpability”, given that the Accused’s actions were neither sophisticated nor premeditated.

(b) The aggravating offender-specific factors are the TIC Cold Storage Charge and the fact that the Accused had re-offended while on police bail and under investigation for similar offending.

(c) With a sentencing reduction following the Accused’s plea of guilt at Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, the resulting sentence is five weeks’ imprisonment.

Sentencing Analysis and Decision

I now analyse the appropriate sentence for the Cold Storage Charge, through an application of the Nicholas Tan framework.

Nicholas Tan Steps 1 to 3 – Starting point sentence based on offence-specific factors

At Step 1 of the Nicholas Tan framework, I consider the offence-specific factors to identify the level of harm caused by the offence, and the level of the offender’s culpability.

In relation to the harm done by the offence, I find that this falls towards the middle to lower-end of the “Low Harm” band, based on an analysis of the factors mentioned in Nicholas Tan at [65]–[75]. The following considerations are of particular significance in arriving at this assessment.

(a) The level of intrusiveness was relatively low, capturing footage of V1’s covered buttocks. It is certainly significantly lower than in other precedent cases such as Loh Guang Ze (where the footage captured the victim’s exposed genitals, breasts, buttocks and face in the acts of fellatio and sexual intercourse), or Public Prosecutor v Ng Sheng Wei Dean [2024] SGDC 185 (“Dean Ng”) (where the footage captured the victim’s exposed genitals, breasts and face while showering).

(b) The duration of the recording was significantly shorter than in other precedent cases such as Loh Guang Ze (video exceeding 25 minutes) or Dean Ng (video of 2 minutes 13 seconds). While there is no evidence of the length of the recording in the present case, it appears from the CCTV footage that the captured video would have been very brief.

(c) There was no retention, distribution or use of the video(s). However, this is merely the absence of an aggravating factor. In any event, I note that the Accused had permanently deleted the video(s) because he had been caught and made to do so.

(d) There was no evidence of the existence and extent of any emotional or psychological harm suffered by V1.

In relation to the Accused’s culpability, I find that this falls towards the middle of the “Low Culpability” band, based on an analysis of the factors in Nicholas Tan at [76]–[81]. The following considerations are of particular significance in arriving at this assessment.

(a) The Accused knew, rather than merely had “reason to believe”, that V1 did not so consent to his recording of the video(s).

(b) In relation to the degree of premeditation and planning, there is no evidence that there was any premeditation or planning other than the fact that the Accused had decided to seek victims within the supermarket.

(c) While the Accused had targeted V1 (and V2, which is the subject matter of the TIC Cold Storage Charge), there was no significant stalking or following of V1 (or V2).

(d) The Accused had no prior relationship with V1 and therefore did not breach any existing relationship of trust with her.

(e) The Accused deleted the video(s) taken of V1 and V2 presumably to avoid detection (as they were found in the “Recently Deleted” folder of his mobile phone). He also initially refused to let V2’s Boyfriend check his mobile phone.

(f) There is no evidence as to the Accused’s specific motivation for the offence, beyond the inference that – as with the other voyeuristic offences he had committed – the video(s) of V1 were recorded for his personal sexual gratification. There is no evidence of any aggravating motivation such as spite, malice or commercial exploitation (see Nicholas Tan at [80]).

(g) While the Accused had a prolonged pattern of voyeuristic offending (as seen in the various proceeded and TIC charges), in relation specifically to the subject matter of the Cold Storage Charge, there was no evidence of any persistence in his attempts to capture voyeuristic videos of V1.

At Step 2 of the Nicholas Tan framework, I find that the Cold Storage Charge falls within the “Low Harm” and “Low Culpability” cell, which has a sentencing range of a fine or up to four months’ imprisonment.

In relation to Step 3 of the Nicholas Tan framework, I find that the offending conduct amounted to a relatively straightforward instance of a PC s 377BB(4) offence. Beyond the fact that the Accused had recorded a fleeting upskirt video of V1 while knowing that she did not consent to this, there were no additional features that materially heightened the intrusiveness or gravity of the offence. I thus find that the appropriate sentence is a custodial term below the mid-point of the custodial range in the “Low Harm” and “Low Culpability” cell. In this regard, I agree with the Defence that the appropriate starting point is six weeks’ imprisonment.

Nicholas Tan Step 4 – Offender-Specific Factors

At Step 4 of the Nicholas Tan framework, I consider the offender-specific factors. In this regard, there are two aggravating factors, which warrant an overall uplift of four weeks’ imprisonment:

(a) First, the presence of the TIC Cold Storage Charge, which concerned a similar offending act at the same location about eight minutes before the subject matter of the Cold Storage Charge, involving a different victim (ie, V2). The Accused had, in fact, targeted V2 twice in quick succession (see [12] above). The TIC Cold Storage Charge warrants an uplift of two weeks’ imprisonment.

(b) Second, the offences that are the subject matter of the Cold Storage Charge (and the TIC Cold Storage Charge) took place while the Accused was already under investigation for similar voyeuristic offending, and while he was on police bail. This warrants a further uplift of two weeks’ imprisonment.

The relevant mitigating factor is the Accused’s early plea of guilt within Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, which attracts a sentencing reduction of up to 30%.

I pause to note two points relating to the parties’ assessment of offender-specific factors in this case.

(a) First, while the Defence acknowledged the offender-specific aggravating factors mentioned at [46] above, it did not specify the relevant sentencing uplift. Having regard to the final sentence sought for this charge (see [39(c)] above) and the sentencing reduction contended for, the Defence appears to have proposed only a nominal uplift for these aggravating factors. This does not adequately reflect either the significance of the TIC Cold Storage Charge or the fact that the offences in the Cold Storage were committed while the Accused was already under investigation and on police bail for similar offending.

(b) Second, in its submissions on offence-specific aggravating factors, the Prosecution referred to the “multiple similar TIC voyeurism charges which warrant a significant uplift of the sentence”, and the fact that the Accused had “committed these offences over more than two years”. The Prosecution repeated this submission for each of the proceeded charges. It is unclear which TIC charges are being relied upon in relation to each proceeded charge. Absent such identification, there is a risk that the same TIC charge may be taken into account multiple times across different proceeded charges, or that insufficient weight may be accorded to particular TIC charges. This difficulty can be avoided by identifying the specific TIC charges relevant to each proceeded charge, as I have sought to do in this judgment.

Sentence for the Cold Storage Charge

The claim-trial sentence for the Cold Storage Charge is ten weeks’ imprisonment (being a starting point sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment, with an uplift of four weeks’ imprisonment on account of offender-specific aggravating factors). Applying a 30% sentencing reduction, the final sentence is an imprisonment term of seven weeks.

The 2024 Amalgamated Charge

I turn next to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge.

Parties’ Arguments

Applying the Nicholas Tan framework, the Prosecution sought a sentence of eight to nine months’ imprisonment for the 2024 Amalgamated Charge. In the Prosecution’s submission:

(a) The starting point sentence should be nine to ten months’ imprisonment, for the following reasons:

(i) Harm was at the “middle of moderate”, for two reasons. First, because the Accused’s acts were intrusive (having taken videos of multiple female victims’ covered buttocks), resulting in a significant loss of privacy to the victims. Second, the retention of the videos gave rise to the potential for repeated invasions of the victims’ privacy long after the offence had been committed.

(ii) The Accused’s culpability was at the “middle of moderate”, for two reasons. First, the Accused had actual knowledge that the victims did not consent to him taking the upskirt videos. Second, while he did not employ a deliberate plan in committing the offences, he had a modus operandi on how to do so and was opportunistic in committing the offences.

(iii) The indicative sentencing range under the Nicholas Tan sentencing matrix is eight to 12 months’ imprisonment. Given that the 2024 Amalgamated Charge is an amalgamated charge, this warrants an upward adjustment of the indicative starting point to nine to ten months’ imprisonment.

(b) A three-month uplift is warranted based on the severity of the Accused’s multiple TIC charges and the fact that he had been committing voyeuristic offences over more than two years.

(c) With a sentencing reduction given the Accused’s plea of guilt at Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, the resulting sentence, the resulting sentence is eight to nine months’ imprisonment.

The Defence disagreed with this harm and culpability assessment. In the Defence’s submission, the appropriate sentence for the 2024 Amalgamated Charge is seven months’ imprisonment:

(a) The starting point sentence should be nine months’ imprisonment, keeping in mind that it is an amalgamated charge which may be punished by higher maximum punishment:

(i) Harm was in the “lower end of Moderate Harm”, keeping in view that there was a “sizeable number of videos recorded”, that it was essentially “the basic prerequisite manifestation” of offences under PC s 377BB(5), and that the voyeuristic material was not circulated.

(ii) The Accused’s culpability was at the “higher end of Low Culpability”, given that the Accused’s actions spanned a year, and that while he utilised a hidden folder as part of his modus operandi, his actions were neither sophisticated nor premeditated.

(b) The aggravating offender-specific factor is fact that the Accused had re-offended while on police bail and under investigation for similar offending. The Defence suggested that there were no TIC charges to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, as the Defence had proposed to take the following charges into consideration for the purposes of the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge instead: TIC 2025 Amalgamated Charge, TIC Obscene Film Charge 1, TIC Obscene Film Charge 2, TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 1 and TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 2.

(c) With a sentencing reduction given the Accused’s plea of guilt at Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, the resulting sentence is seven months’ imprisonment.

Sentencing Analysis and Decision

I proceed to analyse the 2024 Amalgamated Charge in accordance with the Prakash framework.

Prakash First Stage – Starting point sentence for “base offence”

Taking one of the 32 occasions as the “base offence”, the analysis of harm and culpability factors relating to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge is broadly similar to that in the Cold Storage Charge (see [42]–[43] above), save that the “base offence” is aggravated because the Accused (a) had retained the voyeuristic videos, with the potential for repeated invasions of the victim’s privacy; and (b) stored the videos in a hidden folder in his mobile phone, presumably to avoid detection. At Step 3 of the Nicholas Tan framework, the starting point sentence for the “base offence”, on a claim-trial basis, is therefore seven weeks’ imprisonment.

Prakash Second Stage – Starting point sentence for amalgamated charge

At the Prakash second stage, the court considers the doubled punishment limit in CPC ss 124(8)(a)(ii), although this does not mean that the punishment meted out is doubled. At this stage, the starting point sentence may be increased beyond the relevant indicative sentencing range in Nicholas Tan, in view of the increased aggregate harm and culpability involved in the recurrent offending.

In relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, I find that the amalgamated offence – holistically considered – warrants an uplift of 24 weeks’ imprisonment, in view of the following aggravating factors:

(a) First, in terms of duration and frequency of the offending conduct, the offending conduct spanned a year (from January to December 2024). During this time, the Accused committed similar acts of voyeurism on no less than 32 occasions. This demonstrates significant recalcitrance and persistence in criminal behaviour.

(b) Second, the harm was visited upon a significant number of female victims, and such harm was amplified through the actual or potential repeated invasion of their privacy as the Accused had retained the videos for his personal sexual gratification.

The uplift brings the indicative sentence for the amalgamated offence to 31 weeks’ imprisonment on a claim-trial basis.

Prakash Third Stage – Offender-specific factors

At the third stage of the Prakash approach, the court considers offender-specific factors. The main aggravating factor here concerns five TIC charges that I take into consideration for the sentencing of the 2024 Amalgamated Charge (ie, TIC 2025 Amalgamated Charge, TIC Obscene Film Charge 1, TIC Obscene Film Charge 2, TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 1 and TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 2). Given the sheer number of offences under these charges, a further uplift of 12 weeks’ imprisonment is warranted. The Defence had submitted that these should be taken into consideration for the sentencing of the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge. However, from the perspective of the global sentence, given that the sentence for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge will run concurrently (see [6] above), it would better reflect the Accused’s overall criminality if these TIC charges are considered in the context of the 2024 Amalgamated Charge instead.

For completeness, I note the Defence’s submission that in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, the Accused had re-offended while on police bail and under investigation for similar offending (see [52(b)] above). I am unable to see how this is the case given that the subject matter of the 2024 Amalgamated Charge took place prior to the Accused’s first arrest on 3 May 2025. That said, I do note that some of the matters in the five TIC charges took place after his first arrest, while he was on police bail and under investigation for similar offending. I have taken this into consideration in the 12-week uplift mentioned at [58] above.

The relevant mitigating factor is the Accused’s early plea of guilt within Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, which attracts a sentencing reduction of up to 30%.

Sentence for the 2024 Amalgamated Charge

The claim-trial sentence for the 2024 Amalgamated Charge is therefore 43 weeks’ imprisonment (being an indicative sentence of 31 weeks’ imprisonment for the amalgamated offence, plus a 12-week uplift for the offender-specific aggravating factors). Applying a 30% sentencing reduction, the final sentence is an imprisonment term of 30 weeks.

The 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge

I now consider the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge.

Parties’ Arguments

Applying the Nicholas Tan framework, the Prosecution sought a sentence of four to five months’ imprisonment for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge. In the Prosecution’s submission:

(a) The starting point sentence should be five months’ imprisonment, for the following reasons:

(i) Harm was in the “high end of low”. For this, the Prosecution cited the same reasons as those in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge (see [51(a)(i)] above).

(ii) The Accused’s culpability was at the “middle of moderate”. For this, the Prosecution cited the same reasons as those in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge (see [51(a)(ii)] above.

(iii) The indicative sentencing range under the Nicholas Tan sentencing matrix is four to eight months’ imprisonment. Given that the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge is an amalgamated charge, this warrants a starting point sentence of five months’ imprisonment.

(b) An uplift of one to two months’ imprisonment is warranted based on the severity of the Accused’s multiple TIC charges and the fact that he had been committing voyeuristic offences over more than two years.

(c) With a sentencing reduction given the Accused’s plea of guilt at Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, the resulting sentence, the resulting sentence is eight to nine months’ imprisonment.

The Defence disagreed with this harm and culpability assessment. In the Defence’s submission, the appropriate sentence for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge is three months’ imprisonment, for the following reasons:

(a) The starting point sentence should be three months’ imprisonment, keeping in mind that it is an amalgamated charge which may be punished by higher maximum punishment:

(i) Harm was in the “middle of Low Harm”, keeping in view that there were seven videos recorded, that it was essentially “the basic prerequisite manifestation” of offences under PC s 377BB(5), and that the voyeuristic material was not circulated.

(ii) The Accused’s culpability was at the “middle of Low Culpability”, given that the Accused’s actions spanned about two months, and that while he utilised a hidden folder as part of his modus operandi, his actions were neither sophisticated nor premeditated.

(b) The aggravating offender-specific factor is fact that the Accused had re-offended while on police bail and under investigation for similar offending. The Defence also proposed that five TIC charges be taken into consideration for the purposes of the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge (ie, TIC 2025 Amalgamated Charge, TIC Obscene Film Charge 1, TIC Obscene Film Charge 2, TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 1 and TIC Obscene Film Possession Charge 2).

(c) With a sentencing reduction given the Accused’s plea of guilt at Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, the resulting sentence is three months’ imprisonment.

Sentencing Analysis and Decision

As with the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, I proceed in accordance with the Prakash framework when analysing the appropriate sentence for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge.

Prakash First Stage – Starting point sentence for “base offence”

Taking one of the seven occasions as the “base offence”, the analysis of harm and culpability factors relating to the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge is the same as that in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge (see [54] above). At Step 3 of the Nicholas Tan framework, the starting point sentence for the “base offence”, on a claim-trial basis, is therefore seven weeks’ imprisonment.

Prakash Second Stage – Starting point sentence for amalgamated charge

In relation to the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge, I find that the amalgamated offence – holistically considered – warrants an uplift of eight weeks’ imprisonment, in view of the following aggravating factors:

(a) First, in terms of duration and frequency of the offending conduct, the offending conduct spanned more than six weeks (from 1 December 2025 to 19 January 2026). During this time, the Accused committed similar acts of voyeurism on no less than seven occasions. This demonstrates significant recalcitrance and persistence in criminal behaviour.

(b) Second, the harm was visited upon seven female victims, and such harm was amplified through the actual or potential repeated invasion of their privacy as the Accused had retained the videos for his personal sexual gratification.

An uplift of eight weeks’ imprisonment is proportionate when considered against the uplift of 24 weeks’ imprisonment in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, which involved more than four times the number of offending occasions.

The uplift brings the indicative sentence for the amalgamated offence to 15 weeks’ imprisonment on a claim-trial basis.

Prakash Third Stage – Offender-specific factors

At the third stage of the Prakash approach, the court considers offender-specific factors. The main aggravating factor here is the fact that the offences under the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge were committed while the Accused was on police bail and under investigation for similar offending. Indeed, at least one of the videos was recorded on 19 January 2026, after he had already been caught by the group in relation to the Cold Storage Charge (see [23] above). This warrants an uplift of two weeks’ imprisonment.

The relevant mitigating factor is the Accused’s early plea of guilt within Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, which attracts a sentencing reduction of up to 30%.

Sentence for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge

The claim-trial sentence for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge is therefore 17 weeks’ imprisonment (being an indicative sentence of 15 weeks’ imprisonment for the amalgamated offence, plus a two-week uplift for the offender-specific aggravating factors). Applying a 30% sentencing reduction, the final sentence is an imprisonment term of 12 weeks.

The Workplace Amalgamated Charge

I now come to the Workplace Amalgamated Charge, which is the most egregious of the charges against the Accused.

Parties’ Arguments

Applying the Nicholas Tan framework, the Prosecution sought a sentence of 11 to 12 months’ imprisonment for the Workplace Amalgamated Charge. In the Prosecution’s submission:

(a) The starting point sentence should be 12 months’ imprisonment, for the following reasons:

(i) Harm was in the “highest end of moderate”. For this, the Prosecution cited the same reasons as those in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge (see [51(a)(i)] above). In addition, the Prosecution pointed out that at least ten victims were identified during investigations, and “know that they were victims of voyeurism offences”. The Prosecution also submitted that there was a breach of trust in this case (citing Nicholas Tan at [79]), given that the Accused and multiple victims “were colleagues who worked together and shared an office space”.

(ii) The Accused’s culpability was at the “high end of moderate”. For this, the Prosecution cited the same reasons as those in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge (see [51(a)(ii)] above. In addition, the Prosecution pointed out that the Accused’s culpability was further heighted by the fact that he had targeted victims with whom he had “daily proximity”.

(iii) The indicative sentencing range under the Nicholas Tan sentencing matrix is eight to 12 months’ imprisonment. Given that the Workplace Amalgamated Charge is an amalgamated charge, this warrants a starting point sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.

(b) An uplift of four months’ imprisonment is warranted based on the TIC Workplace Amalgamated Charge (involving 15 occasions of voyeurism of his female colleagues), as well as the severity of the Accused’s multiple TIC charges and the fact that he had been committing voyeuristic offences over more than two years.

(c) With a sentencing reduction given the Accused’s plea of guilt at Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, the resulting sentence is 11 to 12 months’ imprisonment.

The Defence disagreed with this harm and culpability assessment, but proposed a sentence that was in fact at the higher end of the Prosecution’s proposed sentence (ie, 12 months’ imprisonment). The Defence’s arguments were as follows:

(a) The starting point sentence should be 16 months’ imprisonment, keeping in mind that it is an amalgamated charge which may be punished by higher maximum punishment:

(i) Harm was in the “middle of Moderate Harm”, keeping in view that there were 70 videos recorded, that it was essentially “the basic prerequisite manifestation” of offences under PC s 377BB(5), and that the voyeuristic material was not circulated.

(ii) The Accused’s culpability was at the “lower end of Moderate Culpability”, given that the Accused’s actions spanned a year, that he had abused his position and the trust reposed in him at the workplace, but keeping in mind that his actions were neither sophisticated nor premeditated.

(b) The aggravating offender-specific factors are that the Accused had re-offended while on police bail and under investigation for similar offending, and that there are two TIC charges (ie, the TIC Workplace Amalgamated Charge and the TIC Workplace V3 Charge).

(c) With a sentencing reduction given the Accused’s plea of guilt at Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, the resulting sentence is 12 months’ imprisonment.

Sentencing Analysis and Decision

As with the 2024 Amalgamated Charge and the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge, I proceed in accordance with the Prakash framework when analysing the appropriate sentence for the Workplace Amalgamated Charge.

Prakash First Stage – Starting point sentence for “base offence”

Taking one of the 70 occasions as the “base offence”, the analysis of harm and culpability factors relating to the Workplace Amalgamated Charge is similar to that in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge (see [54] above), save for the aggravating factor that there was a breach of trust in the present case given that the Accused had preyed upon his female colleagues at the Workplace and the Station. At Step 3 of the Nicholas Tan framework, the starting point sentence for the “base offence”, on a claim-trial basis, is therefore nine weeks’ imprisonment.

Prakash Second Stage – Starting point sentence for amalgamated charge

In relation to the Workplace Amalgamated Charge, I find that the amalgamated offence – holistically considered – warrants an uplift of 48 weeks’ imprisonment, in view of the following aggravating factors:

(a) First, in terms of duration and frequency of the offending conduct, the offending conduct spanned a year (from January to December 2025). During this time, the Accused committed similar acts of voyeurism on no less than 70 occasions against his female colleagues, in repeated acts of – to borrow Defence Counsel’s language – “abus[ing] his position and the trust reposed in him at his workplace”. This demonstrates significant recalcitrance and persistence in criminal behaviour.

(b) Second, the harm was visited upon multiple female victims who were his colleagues. Such harm was amplified through the Accused’s repeated invasion of their privacy as he had retained the videos for his personal sexual gratification.

While it is possible that the nature of aggregate offending may warrant a different type of sentence (Prakash at [45(c)] and [129(b)(iii)]), I do not think that caning is warranted in the present case. Caning is typically imposed for voyeurism offences that are far more serious than those in the Workplace Amalgamated Charge. For instance, one stroke of the cane was ordered in addition to imprisonment where an offender took highly intrusive and lengthy video recordings of the victim’s exposed genitals, breasts, buttocks and face while she was blindfolded and engaging in fellatio or sexual intercourse with him, in circumstances where there was some level of premeditation and planning (Loh Guang Ze at [107]–[109]).

An uplift of 48 weeks’ imprisonment is proportionate when considered against the uplift of 24 weeks’ imprisonment in relation to the 2024 Amalgamated Charge, which involved less than half the number of offending occasions, and which did not involve repeated breaches of existing relationships of trust.

The uplift brings the indicative sentence for the amalgamated offence to 57 weeks’ imprisonment on a claim-trial basis.

Prakash Third Stage – Offender-specific factors

At the third stage of the Prakash approach, the court considers offender-specific factors.

The main aggravating factor here concerns two TIC charges that I take into consideration for the sentencing of the Workplace Amalgamated Charge (ie, the TIC Workplace Amalgamated Charge and the TIC Workplace V3 Charge). Given the number and nature of offences under these charges, a further uplift of six weeks’ imprisonment is warranted.

The relevant mitigating factor is the Accused’s early plea of guilt within Stage 1 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, which attracts a sentencing reduction of up to 30%.

Sentence for the Workplace Amalgamated Charge

The claim-trial sentence for the Workplace Amalgamated Charge is therefore 63 weeks’ imprisonment (being an indicative sentence of 57 weeks’ imprisonment for the amalgamated offence, plus a six-week uplift for the offender-specific aggravating factors). Applying a 30% sentencing reduction, the final sentence is an imprisonment term of 44 weeks.

Global Sentence

The sentences for the respective charges are as follows:

CPC s 307(1) requires a court to order at least two imprisonment terms to run consecutively where an offender is sentenced to imprisonment for at least three distinct offences.

In determining which sentences should run consecutively, the court applies the principles set out in Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] 4 SLR 799 (“Raveen”). Generally, sentences imposed for offences forming part of the same transaction will run concurrently, while sentences imposed for offences that are unrelated will run consecutively (see Raveen at [39] and [41]).

Applying these principles, I agree with the parties that the imprisonment terms for the Cold Storage Charge, the 2024 Amalgamated Charge and the Workplace Amalgamated Charge should run consecutively, with the imprisonment term for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge running concurrently. This results in an aggregate sentence of 81 weeks’ imprisonment.

I now take a “last look” at all the facts and circumstances as required by the “totality principle” (see Raveen at [73]). As explained in Raveen (at [73], citing Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 998 at [54] and [57]), there are two limbs to this principle. Both limbs are satisfied in the present case:

(a) First, the aggregate sentence is not substantially above the normal level of sentence for the most serious offence, namely the Workplace Amalgamated Charge.

(b) Second, the aggregate sentence is neither crushing nor disproportionate in view of the Accused’s circumstances. Given the sheer number of voyeurism and related offences committed by the Accused, a significant deterrent sentence is warranted.

I therefore order that the imprisonment terms for the Cold Storage Charge, the 2024 Amalgamated Charge and the Workplace Amalgamated Charge run consecutively, with the imprisonment term for the 2025-2026 Amalgamated Charge running concurrently.

For completeness, I observe that notwithstanding my adoption of methodology and reasoning that did not always coincide with the parties’ submissions, the sentence ultimately arrived at largely converges with the positions advanced by the parties. It is substantially the same as the Defence’s proposed global sentence of “19 months and 5 weeks”, and is not far removed from the Prosecution’s proposed range of 21 to 23 months’ imprisonment.

Conclusion

Taking a holistic view of the multiple voyeurism offences in the present case, I am satisfied that an aggregate sentence of 81 weeks’ imprisonment is proportionate to the gravity of the Accused’s overall criminality and sufficient for deterrence, without being excessive or crushing.

Justin Yeo District Judge

Mr Sean Teh (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Prosecution; Mr Cory Wong (Invictus Law Corporation) for the Accused.