DAC-913284-2025 (1st Charge)

You […] are charged that you, on 15th day of May 2025, at about 7.00am, along the pavement outside [a school] did use criminal force on [“V1”, a 15-year-old female], to wit, by intentionally bumping onto her chest (including her left breast) and shoulder area with your right shoulder causing your right shoulder to come into contact with her left breast and shoulder, knowing it to be likely to outrage her modesty, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354(1) of the Penal Code 1871.

DAC-913285-2025 (2nd Charge)

You […] are charged that you, on 19th day of May 2025, at about 7.00am, along the pavement outside [a school], did use criminal force on [“V2”, a 26-year-old female], to wit, by using your left arm to thrust into the side of her ribcage area below her breast, knowing it to be likely to outrage her modesty, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354(1) of the Penal Code 1871.

DAC-900052-2026 (3rd Charge)

You […] are charged that you, on 18th day of December 2025 at about 6.38pm, at the basement floor of 930, Yishun Avenue 2, Singapore 769098 Northpoint City Mall, did use criminal force on [“V3”, a 49-year-old female], to wit, by intentionally bumping into the victim with the left side of your body and brushing your left arm against both of the victim’s breasts from right to left, knowing it to be likely to outrage her modesty, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354(1) of the Penal Code 1871.

Edmund faced far-ranging psychosocial challenges across most domains in life. It was further assessed that Edmund’s mental health difficulties could indeed have made him more susceptible to becoming easily anxious, hence making it more challenging for him to address the instabilities in his life on his own. That being said, Edmund had also shown limited effort or taken little personal responsibility to avoid offending or improve his personal circumstances. Instead, he had tried to excuse his crimes by attributing it to his life challenges, especially his mental health issues and financial struggles. Yet he also demonstrated little effort to engage with interventions by professional agencies to support his recovery. Hence his psychosocial challenges have chronically persisted in the past decade, some of which he coped with by committing offences. In particular, he developed a habit of using shoplifting to cope with financial difficulties and committed OM to cope with anxiety-provoking situations. His poor receptiveness and adherence to professional intervention also presents as a concern and is likely to perpetuate his offending behaviours unless he finds motivation and starts to assume personal responsibility for improving his personal circumstances.

70     The Singapore Prison Service (“SPS”) was directed to file an affidavit to explain why the MAS is not applicable to those incarcerated under CT. The SPS explained that instead of the MAS scheme, CT inmates are placed on a Release on Licence (“ROL”) scheme if found to be suitable. The MAS and ROL schemes serve the same objective of providing post release support to facilitate an inmate’s reintegration into society and to reduce the risk of reoffending by providing structure aftercare, support and supervision. The key difference is that an inmate serving a regular imprisonment term is typically entitled to remission of one-third of the sentence and if an inmate served a sentence on the First Schedule of the Prisons Act 1933 (2020 Rev Ed), then the MAS applies automatically. For an inmate incarcerated under CT, after two-thirds of the sentence is served, an inmate is eligible to be considered for ROL. However, the grant of ROL is discretionary. The SPS assesses an inmate’s suitability for ROL based on factors such as risk of reoffending, conduct in prison, responsiveness towards rehabilitation, competition of mandatory rehabilitation programmes and presence of concrete post-release plans.

[…]

74     In this case, the main reason advocated by the Prosecution for CT, which I accept in light of the assessment of a high risk of recidivism, is that the accused would be subject to the ROL scheme, which would involve a risk assessment before he is released from prison. That does not affect the considerations which underlie the length of an imprisonment term (which I have assessed above) or a CT term. I hence sentence the accused to 11 years and six months of CT.

98 […] [T]he operative justification for CT is specific deterrence and the reformation of the offender. The question before the court, therefore, is whether these interests of specific deterrence and reformation warrant the imposition of CT. In our judgment, while proportionality remains a relevant consideration in this analysis, it should be applied in an attenuated manner such that the court may decline to impose CT if to do so would be unduly disproportionate, having regard to all the relevant circumstances. […]

[…]

105 […] [A]s we mentioned earlier, proportionality in this context applies to an attenuated extent because the court would, by this stage, already have determined that in principle, despite the availability of other sentence enhancement options, an even longer term of incarceration is called for than the term of regular imprisonment which would likely be imposed. In our judgment, this is best effected by incorporating proportionality as a negating consideration which would justify not imposing CT if the statutorily-prescribed minimum term of CT would result in a period of incarceration that is seriously or unduly disproportionate to the aggregate imprisonment term which has been arrived at in applying Step 1 and Step 2, and which would otherwise likely be imposed. This would typically only cover cases where the minimum term of CT mandated in s 304(1) of the CPC is substantially in excess of the likely imprisonment term for the underlying offence.