Understanding the Sentencing Principles in Sexual Offence Cases: A Deep Dive into Public Prosecutor v CGA

Introduction

In the landmark case Public Prosecutor v CGA ([2024] SGHC 131), the High Court of Singapore provided comprehensive insights into the sentencing principles applicable to sexual offence cases. Presided over by Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, this case revolved around the heinous sexual offences committed by the accused, CGA, against a young victim, culminating in a rigorous examination of the applicable legal framework and the resulting sentences. This article delves into the specifics of the case, the judicial reasoning behind the sentencing, and the broader implications for future cases involving sexual offences.

Case Overview

The accused, CGA, faced multiple charges of sexual assault by penetration (SAP) and outrage of modesty (OM) committed against his step-niece, who was under 14 years old at the time of the offences. The charges included:

1. Two aggravated SAP charges under section 376(1)(a) of the Penal Code.
2. One aggravated OM charge under section 354(2) of the Penal Code.

In addition, there were eight other charges taken into consideration (TIC) for sentencing purposes, encompassing various forms of sexual abuse over a protracted period.

Sentencing Framework for Aggravated SAP Charges

Prosecution’s Submissions

The prosecution sought a robust sentence, recommending nine to ten years’ imprisonment with 12 strokes of the cane for each aggravated SAP charge, arguing for the sentences to run consecutively. This recommendation was based on several aggravating factors:

1. Abuse of Trust: CGA exploited his position as a step-uncle to manipulate and abuse the victim.
2. Duration and Frequency: The offences occurred repeatedly over several years.
3. Severe Harm: The victim suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
4. Risk of STDs: The nature of the assaults posed a risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Defence’s Submissions

Conversely, the defence argued for a lesser sentence, suggesting eight and a half years’ imprisonment per SAP charge with the sentences running concurrently. The defence contended that:

1. The victim was nearly 14, reducing her vulnerability.
2. The accused’s relationship as a step-uncle did not entail a high degree of trust.
3. The incidents of penetration were brief.
4. There was no ejaculation, hence a lower risk of STDs.

Judicial Decision

Justice Hoo Sheau Peng applied the sentencing framework from Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor ([2017] 2 SLR 1015), determining that the case fell within Band 2 (ten to 15 years’ imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane). The key factors influencing this decision included:

1. Significant Harm: The victim’s PTSD diagnosis substantiated severe psychological harm.
2. Abuse of Trust: The close familial relationship and cohabitation emphasized a substantial abuse of trust.
3. Prolonged Abuse: The prolonged and frequent nature of the abuse outweighed the brief duration of individual assaults.
4. Risk of STDs: The penile-oral penetration inherently carried a significant risk.

Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for each aggravated SAP charge, ordering the terms to run consecutively for an aggregate of 18 years’ imprisonment.

Sentencing for Aggravated OM Charge

Framework Application

For the aggravated OM charge, Justice Hoo referred to the framework from GBR v Public Prosecutor ([2018] 3 SLR 1048), which categorized the offence within Band 2 (one to three years’ imprisonment). Given the aggravating factors of abuse of trust, prolonged offending, and resultant psychological harm, the court settled on two years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.

Global Sentence and Judicial Reasoning

The court’s final step involved determining the concurrency of the sentences. By making the imprisonment terms for the two aggravated SAP charges run consecutively and the term for the OM charge concurrently, the court aimed to reflect the gravity and prolonged nature of CGA’s offences adequately. The global sentence thus totaled 18 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane, aligning with the overarching principles of retribution, deterrence, and proportionality in sentencing.