[2026] SGDC 348

IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

[2026] SGDC 348

District Arrest Case No. 900342 of 2025 and 900343 of 2025

Public Prosecutor

Against

Tan Jue Neng Max

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Criminal Law — Offences — Sections 377BK(1) and 377BK(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) — Possession of child abuse material with victims including newborn and others below 2 years old

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Sections 377BK(1) and 377BK(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) — Possession of child abuse material with victims including newborn and others below 2 years old

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

THE APPLICABLE SENTENCING FRAMEWORK 2

STEP 1 – THE OFFENCE-SPECIFIC FACTORS 6

STEPS 2 AND 3 – THE INDICATIVE SENTENCING RANGE

AND STARTING POINT 11

STEP 4 – THE OFFENDER-SPECIFIC FACTORS 12

STEP 5 – THE TOTALITY PRINCIPLE 12

CANING 13

CONCLUSION 16

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

Public Prosecutor

Tan Jue Neng Max

[2026] SGDC 348

District Arrest Case No. 900342 of 2025 and 900343 of 2025

District Judge Samuel Wee

15 October 2026

District Judge Samuel Wee:

Introduction

1 Mr Tan Jue Neng Max (“Mr Tan”) was first exposed to pornography at

12 years old, and began accessing and downloading child abuse material (“CA Material”) from the Internet (including through the dark web) when he was 19 to 20 years old.1 He masturbated while viewing CA Material, but would switch to adult pornography before ejaculation as he “felt guilty about the fact that he was seeing child pornography”, and would at points also delete downloaded CA Material out of guilt before succumbing once more to his deviant urges.2

1 SOF_[8]-[12]; AOS_[1].

2 SOF_[12]; AOS_[1]; MP_[31]-[32].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

2 He has pleaded guilty to one charge under s 377BK(1) punishable under

s 377BK(2) of the Penal Code 1871 (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Possession Charge”) for possessing not less than 100 items of CA Material, which he had reason to believe were CA Material. He also admits and consents to an additional charge under s 377BK(1) punishable under s 377BK(2) of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed) being taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing in respect of his having gained access to CA Material on the dark web (“TIC Charge”).

3 The Prosecution sought a sentence of 22-25 months’ imprisonment and

2-3 strokes of the cane,3 while Mr Tan submitted for the Court to sentence him to no more than 21 months’ imprisonment with no caning.4

4 Applying the framework in Public Prosecutor v Randy Rosigit [2024] 4

SLR 1586 (“Randy Rosigit”), I sentence Mr Tan to 25 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane.

The applicable sentencing framework

5 The Possession Charge carries a mandatory imprisonment term of up to

5 years, a discretionary fine, and discretionary caning.

6 In Randy Rosigit, the General Division of the High Court established a

five-step sentencing approach for the Possession Charge, which I outlined in Public Prosecutor v Lee Ji Qiang George [2026] SGDC 149 (“George Lee”) at [11]-[15] and reproduce below.

3 AOS_[3].

4 MP_[4].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

7 Step 1 involves identifying the level of harm caused by the offence and

the level of the offender's culpability by having regard to the offence-specific factors.

(a) A non-exhaustive list of relevant factors for Step 1 is as follows:5

Harm	Culpability
Objective harm (i) The type and nature of the acts depicted in the	(i) The degree of planning, preparation, premeditation and
CA Material (taking into	sophistication.
account the scale at	(ii) The offender’s attempts
[7(b)] below).6	to conceal his behaviour.
(ii) The number of different	(iii) The offender’s
children depicted in each	participation in a
CA Material.	network.
(iii) The quantity of the CA	(iv) The duration and
Material.	persistence of the
(iv) The age of the children	offending behaviour
depicted in the CA	(including any escalation
Material.	in the level of gratuity of
(v) The type and length of	CA Material possessed
the media involved.	over time).
(vi) The degree of	(v) The motive of the
identifiability of the children in the CA	offender.
Material.
Subjective harm (vii) Evidence of the harm suffered by the victims of the CA Material, such as victim impact statements.

5 Randy Rosigit at [51].

6 Randy Rosigit at [42]-[44].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

(b) The scale in respect of the type and nature of the acts depicted in

the CA Material is as follows:7

Scale	Description (increasing level of harm)
A person who is, or who appears to a reasonable observer to be, or who is implied to be, below 16 years of age is:
Level 1	In the presence of another person who is engaged in, or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity.
Level 2	Engaged in, or apparently engaged in, a sexual pose (whether or not in the presence of another person). The following are non-exhaustive examples of sexual poses: (i) material that depicts an image of the genital region or buttocks (whether exposed or covered) where the depiction is sexual and in circumstances (whether or not apparent from the depiction) which reasonable persons would regard as being offensive; and (ii) material that depicts an image of the breasts (whether exposed or covered), where the depiction is sexual and in circumstances (whether or not apparent from the depiction) which reasonable persons would regard as being offensive.
Level 3	Engaged in, or apparently engaging in, a sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of another person).
Level 4	A victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not the torture, cruelty or abuse is sexual).

8 Step 2 involves identifying the applicable indicative sentencing range

based on the matrix of harm and culpability levels determined in Step 1.8

7 Randy Rosigit at [44].

8 Randy Rosigit at [53]-[56].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

9 Step 3 involves identifying the appropriate starting point within the indicative sentencing range, having regard once again to the level of harm and culpability.9

10 Step 4 involves making adjustments to the starting point to take into account offender-specific aggravating and mitigating factors. A non-exhaustive list of relevant factors is as follows:10

Aggravating Factors	Mitigating Factors
(a) TIC offences. (b) Relevant antecedents. (c) An evident lack of remorse. (d) Offending while on bail.	(a) A guilty plea. (b) Cooperation with the authorities. (c) Psychological factors with a causal link to the commission of the offence.

9 Randy Rosigit at [53]-[56].

10 Randy Rosigit at [57].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

Aggravating Factors	Mitigating Factors
	(d) Ill health, which would make the contemplated term of imprisonment markedly disproportionate. (e) Genuine remorse.

11 Step 5 involves making further adjustments to take into account the totality principle where an offender has been convicted of multiple charges.11

Step 1 – The offence-specific factors

12 The relevant offence-specific factors in the present case show that the harm was at the higher end of severe and the culpability was at the higher end of low:12

Harm (Severe – Higher End)	Culpability (Low – Higher End)
(a) The CA Material involved	(a) Mr Tan was 22 years old at the
Level 4 harm under the scale at	time of the offence under the
[7(b)] above. As pointed out	Possession Charge.20
by the Prosecution, some of	(b) Mr Tan searched for CA
the videos depicted victims	Material on the dark web using
who were “subject to sexual	a browser designed to facilitate
abuse, hung upside down by their legs, exposed to fire, beaten up, and urinated on”, and “screaming in pain”.13	anonymous communication, and admitted to attempting to pay for CA Material from an online user on at least one
(b) At least 220 victims.14	occasion.21
	(c) Mr Tan had a registered account and participated in an
	Internet forum that he knew

11 Randy Rosigit at [58].

12 AOS_[13]-[14].

13 SOF_Annex A; AOS_[13(b)]; MP_[14].

14 SOF_[5]; AOS_[13(c)].

20 MP_[11].

21 SOF_[10]; AOS_[14(a)]; MP_[25].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

Harm (Severe – Higher End)	Culpability (Low – Higher End)
(c) 12,238 items of CA Material,	was “one of the most popular
which included at least 100	child pornography websites
videos.15	within the dark web” to
(d) The victims included a	download CA Material.22
newborn baby16 and others	(d) He possessed the CA Material
below 2 years old.17	for personal viewing and
(e) The duration of the longest	masturbation.23
video was approximately 1	(e) Mr Tan downloaded CA
hour and 24 minutes.18	Material over at least 2-3
(f) At least 217 victims were	years, including after he turned
identifiable.19	21 years old.24
	(f) The Prosecution accepts that
	Mr Tan did not view each of the 12,238 items of CA
	Material. Nevertheless, the fact remains that he was in possession of them, which supports the market for CA
	Material (Randy Rosigit at [38] and [63(a)]).25
	(g) The Possession Charge is premised on the fault element of Mr Tan having had “reason to believe” that the material was CA Material as opposed to the fault element of actual knowledge.26

15 SOF_[4]-[5]; AOS_[13(a)].

16 SOF_Annex A (S/N 6); AOS_[13(d)].

17 SOF_Annex A (S/N 1-5); AOS_[13(d)].

18 SOF_[5]; AOS_[13(a)]; MP_[20(c)].

19 SOF_[5]; AOS_[13(c)]; MP_[20(b)].

22 SOF_[10]; AOS_[14(c)].

23 SOF_[12].

24 SOF_[8]; AOS_[14(b)]; MP_[25].

25 AOS_[15]; MP_[36].

26 AOS_[15]; MP_[33].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

13 This calibration is consistent with the levels of harm and culpability in

Randy Rosigit, George Lee, Public Prosecutor v Lim Kai Heng [2024] SGDC 247 (“Lim Kai Heng”) and Public Prosecutor v Mohd Noor Effendy Bin Eddy Rosmanah [2024] SGDC 305 (“Mohd Noor”):

(a) The level of harm in Mr Tan’s case is pegged at the same level in George Lee, and exceeds the level in Randy Rosigit, Lim Kai Heng and Mohd Noor.27 In this regard, while the quantity of CA Material, the number of victims and the age of the victims in Mr Tan’s case are graver than those in George Lee, the level of harm can go no higher based on the framework in Randy Rosigit.

(b) Mr Tan’s culpability is comparable to the offender in Randy Rosigit, exceeds that of the offenders in George Lee and Lim Kai Heng, and is below that of the offender in Mohd Noor.

14 In Randy Rosigit, the harm was at the lower end of moderate and the

culpability was at the higher end of low based on the following offence-specific factors (which I reproduce from George Lee at [18]):

Harm (Moderate – Lower End)	Culpability (Low – Higher End)
(a) The CA Material depicted	(a) The offender searched for CA
victims who were involved in	Material on the dark web using
sexual activity,28 and involved	a browser designed to hide a
a high level of harm under the	user’s internet footprints; and
scale at [7(b)] above.	paid for CA Material using
(b) 10 fully nude girls who	Bitcoin.
appeared less than 14 years	(b) The offender’s participation in
old.	a network as a passive
(c) 6 items of CA Material – 2 still	consumer rather than an active
images and 4 videos.	supporter or contributor (a

27 MP_[21].

28 Randy Rosigit at [8].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

Harm (Moderate – Lower End)	Culpability (Low – Higher End)
(d) The victims appeared as young	Telegram chat group where
as 6 years old.	CA Material was shared).30
(e) Videos with durations from 51	(c) The duration of offending was
seconds to 37 minutes and 46	more than 1 year and 5
seconds.29	months; and his behaviour
(f) The victims appeared	escalated from mere access to
identifiable as there were	downloading.
frontal views of them.	(d) There was no intent to further distribute the CA Material.

15 In George Lee, the harm was at the higher end of severe and the

culpability was low based on the following offence-specific factors:

Harm (Severe – Higher End)	Culpability (Low)
(a) The CA Material involved	(a) Mr Lee had just turned 21
Level 3 and Level 4 harm	years old when he was arrested
under the scale at [7(b)]	for the offence.37
above.31 For instance, some of	(b) Mr Lee searched for CA
the videos depicted: (i) sexual	Material on the dark web using
activity involving multiple	a browser designed to facilitate
victims; (ii) sexual activity	anonymous communication
involving victims with adults;	and access to encrypted links.38
(iii) sexual activity involving	(c) Mr Lee participated in various
the penile-anal penetration of a	networks (Internet forums and
victim that resulted in	Telegram chat groups) where
bleeding; and (iv) sexual	he learned how to obtain and
activity involving the victims	download the CA Material
being bound by ropes.	from the dark web and other
(b) At least 117 victims.32	file hosting services.39
	(d) He possessed the CA Material for personal viewing and

29 Randy Rosigit at [2] and [8].

30 Randy Rosigit at [8].

31 SOF_[10].

32 SOF_[10].

37 SOF_[1]-[2]; MP_[3] and [25].

38 SOF_[8].

39 SOF_[7] and [8(c)].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

Harm (Severe – Higher End)	Culpability (Low)
(c) 548 items of CA Material –	masturbation.40 According to
448 still images and 100	Mr Lee, such viewing was
videos.33	sporadic and limited to periods
(d) The victims appeared as young	where he was unable to cope
as 5 years old.34	with his stress and anxiety.41
(e) The duration of the two longest	(e) The CA Material was
videos was approximately 1	downloaded over about 3-4
hour and 3 minutes each.35	years.42 According to Mr Lee,
(f) At least 112 victims were	this happened while he was
identifiable.36	still under 21 years old.43

In this regard, it is critical to reiterate that the culpability of the offender in George Lee would have been at the higher end of low but for the fact that the offender had just turned 21 years old when he was arrested for the offence and that the CA Material had been downloaded prior to him turning 21 years old.

16 In Lim Kai Heng, the harm was at the lower end of severe and the

culpability was low based on the following offence-specific factors (which I reproduce from George Lee at [19]):

Harm (Severe – Lower End)	Culpability (Low)
(a) The CA Material involved	(a) The offender possessed the CA
Level 3 and Level 4 harm	Material for personal viewing
under the scale at [7(b)] above. (b) At least 41 different victims. (c) 136 items of CA Material – 125 still images and 11 videos.	and masturbation.

33 SOF_[10].

34 SOF_Annex A (S/N 1).

35 SOF_Annex A (S/N 1 and 7).

36 SOF_[10].

40 SOF_[9].

41 MP_[6]-[7] and [35].

42 SOF_[6].

43 MP_[25], [35], [37], [44] and [50].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

Harm (Severe – Lower End)	Culpability (Low)
(d) The victims appeared as young
as 4 years old.
(e) Videos with durations from 7
seconds to 1 minute and 59
seconds.
(f) At least 31 victims were
clearly identifiable.

17 In Mohd Noor, the harm was at the lower end of severe and the

culpability was at the higher end of medium based on the following offence-specific factors (which I reproduce from George Lee at [20]):

Harm (Severe – Lower End)	Culpability (Medium – Higher End)
(a) The CA Material involved	(a) The CA Material was
harm ranging from Level 2 to	downloaded from a shared
Level 4 under the scale at	Telegram account.
[7(b)] above.	(b) The duration of offending was
(b) Multiple victims.	for nearly 2 years.
(c) 76 items of CA Material – 15	(c) The offender was involved in
still images and 61 videos.	producing and performing the
(d) The victims appeared as young	sexual acts in some of the CA
as 5 years old.	Material – 2 videos and 11
(e) Videos with durations from 7	photographs (with no evidence
seconds to 1 minute and 59 seconds. (f) Some victims were identifiable.	of onward sharing by him).

Steps 2 and 3 – The indicative sentencing range and starting point

18 Based on the harm and culpability assessment, the applicable indicative

sentencing range under the sentencing matrix in Randy Rosigit is 24-36 months’ imprisonment with the option of caning.

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

19 Having regard to the specific combination of harm and culpability

factors, I find that 36 months’ imprisonment is the appropriate starting point within the indicative sentencing range.

Step 4 – The offender-specific factors

20 The starting point sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment should be

adjusted downwards to 25 months to account for the following:

(a) A reduction of up to 30% as Mr Tan indicated his intention to plead guilty at Stage 1 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas.44

(b) A reduction to account for Mr Tan’s cooperation with the authorities.45

21 For completeness, I placed no weight at Step 4 on the TIC Charge which

relates to Mr Tan’s accessing of CA Material on the dark web, as I agree with the Prosecution that the circumstances surrounding this offence overlap with the offence-specific factors considered under Step 1 (see [12] above).46

Step 5 – The totality principle

22 Step 5 is not applicable as Mr Tan has been convicted of only a single

proceeded charge.

44 MP_[7].

45 MP_[8].

46 AOS_[19]; MP_[42].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

Caning

23 Based on the sentencing matrix in Randy Rosigit, Mr Tan faces the

possibility of being caned.

24 Given the offence-specific factors (see [12] above), Mr Tan should be

given 3 strokes of the cane to “achieve the ends of general and specific deterrence, which is a key consideration in the effort to stifle the demand for child abuse material” (Randy Rosigit at [70]).47 In particular, the quantity of CA Material (12,238 items, which included at least 100 videos) and the age of the victims (which included a newborn and others below 2 years old) are particularly egregious.48

25 The number of strokes imposed is not inconsistent with the outcome in:

(a) George Lee, where the offender was sentenced to 1 stroke of the cane notwithstanding harm at the higher end of severe and low culpability, on account of the fact that the offender had just turned 21 years old when he was arrested for the offence and that the CA Material had been downloaded prior to him turning 21 years old (see [15] above).

(b) Lim Kai Heng, where the offender was sentenced to 2 strokes of the cane in the context of harm at the lower end of severe and low culpability (see [16] above).

(c) Mohd Noor, where the offender was sentenced to 3 strokes of the cane in the context of harm at the lower end of severe and culpability at the higher end of medium (see [17] above).

47 AOS_[4].

48 AOS_[22].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

26 For completeness, I do not agree with Mr Tan’s argument that he should avoid caning on the basis that the Possession Charge is premised on the fault element of him having had “reason to believe” that the material was CA Material as opposed to the fault element of actual knowledge, and that he did not view each of the 12,238 items of CA Material.49 As set out at [12(f)] above, the fact remains that he was in possession of them, which supports the market for CA Material. In this regard, it is apt to reproduce the following observations by the General Division of the High Court in Randy Rosigit in respect of market-making harm being one of the important overarching harm factors to be considered in sentencing:

38 We emphasise that harm is a very serious factor in the present offence. Offences involving child abuse material, and related offences such as child sex tourism, are a particularly egregious variety of offending because of the extreme vulnerability of the victims. The direct harm to the children involved in these cases is plain to see. It would be artificial to suggest that the real harm is only the long-term psychological effects on the child victims. That there are no victim impact statements is also beside the point – we agree with Mr Santoso's observation that in many cases involving possession of child abuse material, the child victims involved in the production of the child abuse material may not have been precisely identified or located, much less brought before the court.

39 To deal with this harm, it is important to focus on the demand side for such material. The Penal Code Review Committee, which recommended the creation of new offences relating to child abuse material (Penal Code Review Committee, Penal Code Review Committee Report (August 2018) (the “PCRC Report”) at pp 126–132), flagged that technology had facilitated both the distribution of and the demand for child abuse material (PCRC Report at p 125, para 7). The PCRC Report further noted (at p 129, para 34) that the relationship between the maker of child abuse material and the consumer can be likened to the relationship between receivers and thieves. Without a market for stolen goods, there would be no incentive to steal. Similarly, if not for the consumers, there would be no market for those who abuse children by creating this material. Much of the material is not created from within Singapore even if the

49 MP_[50].

Public Prosecutor v Tan Jue Neng Max [2026] SGDC 348

consumers of such material may be based in Singapore, and this was indeed recognised by Parliament (see [1] above). It is especially important for courts in the countries where there is demand for child abuse material to come down hard on such consumers because the legal frameworks in the supply side countries may not be as robust or reliable.

40 It is true that there are separate offences for different types of activity – such as producing child abuse material (s 377BH of the Penal Code), distributing or selling child abuse material (s 377BI of the Penal Code), and advertising or seeking child abuse material (s 377BJ of the Penal Code) – but this does not change the fact that there is real harm to the victims whose abuse form the content of child abuse material, who are losing their childhood, their innocence and ultimately their human dignity. The harm results largely because there is demand for such child abuse material. The consumer of child abuse material may not be the one producing the material, but he would know that because he is a consumer, he creates the demand for such material and incentivises others to produce it for profit. We thus agree with Mr Santoso’s identification of market-making harm as one of the important overarching harm factors to be considered in sentencing for the Possession Offence.