“The accused, [DYF], (the “Accused”), claimed trial to one charge of rape under s 375(1)(a), punishable under s 375(2), of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). The charge read as follows:”
“— Offences — Sexual offences – Rape and outrage of modesty – Committed against domestic workers; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing framework for enhanced punishment under s 73(1) of the Penal Code”
“iminal charges were subsequently brought against the claimant in the Criminal Case: (a) one charge of voluntarily causing hurt to the first defendant (the “VCH Charge”), punishable under s 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “Penal Code”); and (b) one charge of criminal trespass (the “Trespassing Charge”)”
“On 21 May 2026, YFT (“the Youth”) pleaded guilty to one charge of engaging in conspiracy to commit voyeurism (committed sometime in or around February 2025) under Section 377BB(3) of the Penal Code 1871 (“Penal Code”), punishable under Section 377BB(7) read with Section 109 of the Penal Code (“Proceeded Charge”), and c”
“Gao Xiong (“Appellant”) pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted rape under s 375(1)(a) read with s 511(1) of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed) (“PC”), as well as three charges for criminal trespass under s 447 of the PC. Three charges of unlawful stalking and criminal trespass were taken into consideration (“TIC”) fo”
“b. Dominic Quek concerned an offender who pleaded guilty to an amalgamated charge under section 6(b) of the PCA and consented to a charge under section 204A of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev Ed) to be taken into consideration. At the material time, he was the operations manager at his father’s company dealing in”
“The matter proceeded to trial on a charge of attempted murder under s 307(1) of the Penal Code 1871 (“Penal Code”). At the stage of closing submissions, however, the prosecution submitted that the charge should be amended to one under s 326 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by”
“These became the subject matter of five charges under s 477A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the PC”), viz, DAC 7873 of 2011, DAC 7900 of 2011, 7902 of 2011, 7934 of 2011 and 7994 of 2011. The Prosecution proceeded with these charges. There were 108 other charges, al”
“ntence that had earlier been imposed by the High Court on the Respondent in respect of two previous convictions – one was for an offence of rape under s 375(1)(b) and punishable under s 375(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), and the other was for an offence of driving a lorry without a valid Class 4 driving l”
“The Prosecution proceeded on two charges against the Appellant before the DJ. DAC 929249 of 2014 was a charge under s 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the PC”) for rioting (“the Rioting Offence”). DAC 923500 of 2014 was a charge under ss 28(2)(a) and 28(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders’ Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev”
“y entering into a conspiracy with one Chia Choon Leng (who was known as “Ah Hiang”) to commit an offence of trafficking in 14.99g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA 2001 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) vide DAC 41588/2007 (“the third charge”).”
“In their submissions, the defendants refer to ss 463 and 464 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”), saying that “the facts and circumstances clearly show a prima facie case of forgery”. The provisions read:”
“Out of the 11 charges, the second and third charges fell within the ambit of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) which was in operation before 1 Feb 2008 (“the old Penal Code”). The rest were within the ambit of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) that is presently in force (“the new Pe”
“ndent faced a single charge of voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant, a foreign domestic maid employed by the respondent’s sister. The offence is punishable under s 323 read with s 73(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). She was alleged to have slapped the complainant on the cheek sometime in May 2012 at”
“The punishments provided by law under s 304(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) in respect of the charge are as follows:”
“The punishments provided by law in respect of the charges are as follows. In respect of the first charge, s 304(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) provides for imprisonment for a term that may extend to 10 years or fine or caning or any combination of such punishments. In respect of the second charge, s 33A(1)”
“t the trial). The Applicant’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed in 2011 (see Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 634 (“CA (Conviction)”)). Following the enactment of the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012) (“the 2012 Amendment Act”), all persons who commit the offence of murde”
“charge for the consumption of methamphetamine under s 8(b)(ii) of the MDA; (b) one charge for the possession of methamphetamine under s 8(a) of the MDA; and (c) one charge of theft under s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). In addition to the four charges proceeded with, another three charges,”
“Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Penal Code; Statutory Interpretation] — [Construction of statute] — [Literal; Statutory Interpretation] — [Interpretation Act] — [Purposive approach”
“The accused, Rosdi Bin Joenet, pleaded guilty to and was convicted on the following charge under s 304(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed):”
“This is an appeal against sentences imposed by the District Court in respect of six charges under s 323 read with s 73(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The appellant had pleaded guilty to these charges and consented to have a further 12 charges involving various related offences taken into consideration for”
“Subsequently, the Accused was charged with murder within the meaning of s 300(d) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). The Accused claimed trial to the charge. Before this court, the issue was whether the Accused was guilty of murder, the most serious offence in our penal laws,”
“e enacted complying domestic legislation targeted at deterring the demand for child sex tourism from within their borders. In 2007, Singapore followed this path by introducing two provisions into the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”). The first of these provisions, s 376C, gives extra-territorial eff”
“Criminal Law] — [Offences] — [Property] — [Criminal breach of trust; Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Penal Code”
“Insanity (under s 84 of the General Exceptions in the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)) has been part of our laws since the Penal Code was first promulgated in Singapore, and diminished responsibility is provided as Exception 7 to the crime of murder in s 300 of”
“oung “don’t know any better” and may not have had enough experience to realise the full consequences of their actions on themselves and on others (Mok Ping Wuen Maurice at [21]). I also note that the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) stipulates that nothing is an offence done by a child under 7 years of age, or by a ch”
“eption[s]” or “proviso[s]” to criminal liability. As the illustrations to s 107 of the Evidence Act go on to show, what is contemplated are bona fide defences such as those found in Chapter IV of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) which either go towards justifying or excusing conduct which would otherwise attract c”
“a result of the injuries sustained during the accident. The Public Prosecutor (“the Prosecution”) preferred a charge against the appellant for causing death by a negligent act under s 304A(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the district judge (“the DJ”) to a t”
“death. The court held that he did. The question of what sentence to impose was never at issue, because the sentence of death was mandatory at the time. Subsequently, Parliament made amendments to the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) to provide that a conviction for murder of the kind the applicant was found guilty of”
“even before we had urgently convened to hear his second application – he had filed two separate originating summonses in the High Court seeking a series of declarations that various provisions in the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) and the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012) (“Amendment Act”) are unconst”
“Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Penal Code; Criminal Law] — [Offences] — [Hurt; Criminal Law] — [Offences] — [Public safety][Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Sentencing] — [Principles; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Appeal] — [Ple”
“without consent. Nonetheless, I concluded that the facts proved were sufficient to justify a conviction for the offence of rape within the meaning of s 375(1)(b), but punishable under s 375(2) of the Penal Code. Therefore, I exercised the power granted to me under s 141(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 R”
“morphine that Yazid was to traffic in on 24 October 2013. There is no requirement in law that the person abetted must have the same knowledge as that of the abettor: see Explanation 3 to s 108 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). As for the timing that the Malaysian courier was to meet up with Yazid, although the”
“In the proceedings below, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two separate charges under ss 326 and 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “grievous hurt offence” and “rioting offence”, respectively) on 16 October 2015:”
“e Prosecution’s case was that the victim did not factually give consent to either penetration. If she did, the victim was so intoxicated that her consent was invalid in law, in view of s 90(b) of the Penal Code.”
“, Ang Zhu Ci Joshua (“the Appellant”), is a 29-year-old male Singaporean who was charged with 127 counts of filming or attempting to film “upskirt” videos under s 509, or s 511 read with s 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), respectively. The Appellant pleaded guilty to 15 proceeded charges, with the remainin”
“sentences imposed following a conviction entered in a District Court. The accused pleaded guilty to four proceeded charges: (a) one charge of criminal breach of trust as a servant under s 408 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”); (b) one charge of cheating and dishonestly inducing a delivery of p”
“t the learned District Judge Jasvender Kaur (“the District Judge”) imposed on him for two counts of voluntarily causing hurt to his domestic helper (“the victim”) under s 323 read with s 73(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). Two other similar charges involving the same victim were taken into consideration for”
“st, a blood sample was collected from the accused. His DNA profile was found to match that of the unidentified male subject. This led to the arrest of the accused for an offence under s 376(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”).”
“For the s 406 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) charges (Charge 1 and the charge taken into consideration), the District Judge (“the DJ”) accepted (at [38] of Public Prosecutor v Prem Hirubalan [2016] SGDC 176 (“the GD”)) th”
“two counts of abetting a deceitful act in connection with dealings in securities, an offence under s 201(b) of the Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2002 Rev Ed) (“the SFA”) read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the s 201(b) charges”). These charges arose from the appellant’s deceptive use of no”
“by the learned district judge on the 18 year-old respondent, Ong Jack Hong (“the Respondent”), for an offence of sexual penetration of a minor under s 376A(1)(a) and punishable under s 376A(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The Prosecution argues that the sentence of probation is manifestly inadequate and th”
“Eight charges under the Arms and Explosives Act (Cap 13, 2003 Rev Ed) (“the AEA”) and the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) were preferred against the appellant. He pleaded guilty to and was convicted of three charges for the following offences:”
“(b) five charges under s 379 of the Penal Code (“PC”) (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) for theft of money from the bank through those withdrawals.”
“There are two charges against the accused, both under s 375(1)(a) and punishable under s 375(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). The first charge (“the First Charge”) reads as follows:”