1 The Accused, 19 years old (Date of birth: 5 February 2007) pleaded guilty to two offences under section 354(1) of the Penal Code, committed against his sister in the family home:

2 The Accused admitted and consented to three other charges under section 354(1) punishable under section 74D(2) of the Penal Code being taken into consideration in sentencing. In these charges, the Accused admitted to touching his sister’s breasts whilst she was asleep on the mattress and subsequently touching her breasts over her clothes at least twice a week whilst she was asleep ¹ , touching her buttocks whilst she was asleep ² and touching her breasts over her clothing whilst she was asleep on the upper deck of the bunk bed ³ .

3 Given the Accused’s age, I called for a Reformative Training (RT) suitability report prior to sentencing. The RT report found the Accused physically and mentally suitable for reformative training at level two intensity i.e. a minimum of 12 months’ detention in an RT centre (RTC). Notwithstanding the contents in the RT report, I imposed the following sentences:

a) MAC 910906/2025 – 12 months imprisonment and one stroke of the cane;

b) MAC 910908/2025 – 8 months’ imprisonment.

4 The imprisonment terms were ordered to run concurrently. The total sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment and one stroke of the cane.

5 This is the Accused’s appeal against the sentence.

6 The key portions of the Statement of Facts are reproduced in the following paragraphs. The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts without qualification.

7 The Accused was around 17 to 18 years old at the material time. The victim is N, who was 19 years old at the material time. She is the Accused’s sister. At the material time, she was living in the family home with the Accused, their parents, and their two siblings.

8 When the Accused was 13 years old, he had penetrated the same victim’s vagina with his penis and also touched her breasts and vagina without her consent. He received a 12-month conditional warning and for protective reasons was sent to the Muhammadiyah Welfare Home for approximately three years (and whilst there, he was also referred by the Ministry of Social and Family Development to the Positive Adolescent Sexuality Treatment Program). He later returned to live with the victim and the rest of the family sometime in 2023. On account of their familial relationship and living arrangements, and at all material times, the victim and the Accused were in a close relationship as defined by section 74D(1) of the Penal Code 1871.

9 At the material time, the Accused shared a bedroom with the victim and their younger brother. The three of them slept on two mattresses, which were arranged side-to-side on the floor of the bedroom. The sleeping arrangements were a result of their familial relationship and living arrangements.

10 In February 2025, on multiple occasions, the Accused would touch the victim’s breasts, over her clothing, at night whilst the victim was asleep. He would touch her over her breasts at least twice a week. ⁴ Over the course of February 2025, the Accused committed the following acts on the victim in the bedroom whilst she was asleep on the mattress:

a) MAC 910908/2025 - The Accused touched the victim’s breasts over her clothing and then used his hand to touch her vagina, over her clothes. The victim was woken up by the touches and turned away from him. The Accused then left.

b) MAC 910906/2025 - The Accused pulled down his pants and underwear and took her hand and used her hand to stroke his penis (skin-to-skin). The victim was woken up by the touches and was angry. The Accused also touched her buttocks ⁵ .

11 The family purchased a bunk bed, which was placed in the bedroom in around mid-February 2025. The Accused and his younger brother would sleep on the lower deck of the bunk bed whilst the victim slept on the upper deck. The sleeping arrangements were a result of their familial relationship and living arrangements. Sometime in February 2025, the Accused woke up in the morning. His younger brother was not in the room and he saw that the victim was asleep on the upper deck of the bunk bed. The Accused then touched the victim’s breasts over her clothing. ⁶ The victim filed a police report against the Accused on 4 March 2025.

21 Defence Counsel was right in stating that for a young offender like the Accused, there was a presumptive emphasis on rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration.

22 However, such presumptive emphasis on rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration can be displaced by the need for deterrence. The court in Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz [2015] SGHC 277 reminded at [30]:

23 In determining the appropriate sentence for the Accused, the first and key question for the Court was whether rehabilitation remained the dominant sentencing consideration in this case, or had it been diminished or eclipsed by deterrence or retribution. It was only when this question in the first step of the Al-Ansari framework had been answered in the affirmative that the court could proceed to consider what type of rehabilitative sentence would be suitable for the Accused.

24 Hence, whilst I accepted Defence Counsel’s submissions on how effective an RT regime can be for the Accused with the various intervention programmes suited to deal with the Accused’s needs and how rigorous the supervision can be even after the Accused is released from RTC, it all begged the question as to whether rehabilitation was the dominant sentencing consideration in the first place. Defence Counsel’s added proposition that a term of RT would be more severe and longer than a term of imprisonment sidestepped the anterior question of what the dominant sentencing consideration should be.

25 On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, I was satisfied that the presumptive emphasis on rehabilitation had been displaced by deterrence as the dominant sentencing consideration.

26 The offences committed by the Accused were serious. The prescribed punishment for offences under section 354(1) of the Penal Code was imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments. Having committed these acts on his sister (“close relationship”), the Accused faced a maximum term of imprisonment of up to six years. ²¹

27  I agree with Defence Counsel that the fact that an offence can be characterised as “serious” does not “ipso facto preclude rehabilitative sentencing options” ²² . In his mitigation, Defence Counsel cited cases where the courts had imposed rehabilitative sentences on young offenders who committed serious offences – even offences which were similar in nature to the current offences or even more serious, including rape. ²³ Defence Counsel also highlighted precedents where rehabilitation had been displaced as the dominant sentencing consideration and observed that they “generally reveal the following: a substantial number of offences, the egregious nature of the offence, the use of a weapon or violence, a discernible level of planning or pre-meditation, the severe harm caused, and/or a lack of remorse.” ²⁴

28 In my view however, such a comparative exercise has its limitations. The gravity of an offence is but one aspect of a total and holistic consideration of all circumstances of the case in order to arrive at a final determination of what the dominant sentencing consideration ought to be in each particular case. The court's inquiry is not confined to asking how serious the offence is, relative to other cases such that rehabilitation should or should not be displaced by the need for deterrence.

29 I found the Accused to be recalcitrant, young as he may be. I agree with the Prosecution that the Accused’s repeated offending, targeted at the same victim over the years, show him to be recalcitrant.

30 Defence Counsel contended that “prior to the present offences, there was only one incident involving a sexual offence, for which [the Accused] received a conditional warning and was sent to a welfare home. One prior incident, met with a warning rather than a conviction, cannot reasonably sustain an assertion that the offender is recalcitrant”. ²⁵ In my view, the fact that there was “only one incident” is of no credit to the Accused. A prior sexual offence, against his own sister, is one incident too many. The fact that the Accused’s sexual offending was met with a conditional warning instead of court prosecution was an act of leniency extended to him by the authorities – one which he plainly took for granted, as his subsequent conduct showed. In any event, what was clear was that by this point, the Accused could not have been in any doubt as to the wrongfulness of his conduct.

31 The recalcitrance of the Accused laid in his brazenness in repeating the same offences, against the same victim, despite earlier rehabilitative interventions. He was sent to a welfare home for about three years and was also referred by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to the Positive Adolescent Sexuality Treatment Programme. ²⁶ As the Prosecution pointed out, instead of learning from the “error of his ways”, he went on to commit multiple offences against his sister ²⁷ after returning to live with her and the rest of the family in 2023.

32 There was no indication that the offences the Accused committed were isolated or impulsive. Looking at the charges (including the charges taken into consideration), the Accused touched the victim's breasts on four different occasions in the course of the month. The offending involved touching the victim’s private parts over clothing to forcing the victim's hand onto his penis skin-to-skin. Even if the level of premeditation was low or was entirely absent as Defence Counsel contended, ²⁸ , the pattern of repeated offending across multiple occasions showed that the Accused had deliberately and consistently taken advantage of the sleeping arrangements within the home when he committed these offences.

33 That the Accused targeted his sister was particularly troubling. As pointed out by the Prosecution, on the Accused’s own account, he was capable of refraining from sexual acts if he wanted to. The Accused had not pursued a sexual relationship with his partner when he was deeply involved with her, out of respect for her and in keeping with his religious beliefs. ²⁹ Yet, against his own sister, he afforded no such restraint. He chose to repeatedly violate his sister’s bodily integrity and privacy, exploiting the trust inherent in a sibling relationship and the safety that she was entitled to within a family home. In my view, the fact that he was capable of exercising self-restraint in one context, yet chose not to in another, spoke volumes about the deliberateness of his actions. There was even a certain vindictiveness in the Accused’s conduct where in the RT report, the Accused spoke of how he bore hatred and resentment towards his sister which may have contributed to his offending. ³⁰

34 The Accused's capacity for rehabilitation was not so demonstrably high as to outweigh deterrence as the dominant sentencing consideration. On the evidence before me, there was nothing exceptional about the surrounding circumstances of this case or the degree of remorse shown by the Accused, or the level of familial support that would be available to the Accused so as to justify maintaining an overriding focus on the Accused’s rehabilitation despite the serious nature of the offences he had committed and the circumstances of the case.

35 As mentioned, prior intervention which focused on the Accused’s rehabilitation had also failed. The Accused had been through rehabilitative intervention. Following the earlier offences committed when he was 13 years old, he received a conditional warning, spent approximately three years in the Muhammadiyah Welfare Home, and was referred to the Positive Adolescent Sexuality Treatment Program specifically designed to address problematic sexual behaviour. Despite all of this, he reoffended against the same victim, in the same household, with multiple offences, within roughly two years of returning home. ³¹

36 The Accused had limited insight into his offending. In the RT report, the Accused described his current offences as a "random incident", showing little meaningful reflection on why he reoffended or the harm caused to the victim. His account to the RT psychologist reflected entitled and impulsive thinking which led him to act on his sexual desires without consideration of the consequences. He also remained ambivalent toward intervention, as noted by his previous therapist, suggesting he may not be genuinely motivated to engage with rehabilitative programmes. ³²

37 In addition, the Accused continued to hold offence-supportive attitudes. The Accused justified his offending, including a belief that the victim would "pretend to allow" the acts (at the time of the offending). His previous therapist also noted that he “maintained the sexual acts had been consensual, remained ambivalent toward help-seeking, and continued to hold negative views toward the victim”. ³³

38 There was limited genuine remorse demonstrated by the Accused. Whilst the Accused’s plea of guilt was indicative of a degree of contrition for his actions, it was reported that the Accused had limited empathy towards the victim in respect of the offences, with his remorse noted to be directed primarily toward his mother rather than the victim herself. ³⁴ The attitude of the Accused was further borne out by the apology letter the Accused wrote to the victim. ³⁵ I agree with the Prosecution that the letter came across as lacking in sincerity. Whilst the tone was respectful and acknowledged wrongdoing, it seemed generic, with phrases like "this experience has taught me an important lesson" and "making better choices in the future". The letter was written in general terms and did not make any reference to any specific action or wrongdoing; it felt hollow. I was unable to discern any heartfelt expression of remorse within.

39 The Accused’s family appeared to be unable to provide the necessary support for the Accused’s rehabilitation. Since RT is essentially a rehabilitative sentence, there is interest in ensuring that the Accused’s rehabilitation in the community continues to be sustainable beyond the period of RT itself. However, I did not have the confidence that the Accused’s family could provide the support necessary for his rehabilitation. First, it was precisely the breakdown of protective arrangements in 2025 within the family which directly contributed to the Accused’s reoffending. The family’s ability to maintain appropriate boundaries and safeguarding measures were poor. Second, the family environment was “marked by difficulties and limited emotional support”; the Accused’s parents argued frequently and the Accused’s relationship with his father was described as “distant”. ³⁶ On the surface, the family seemed stable but in truth, it was not. ³⁷ Given the Accused's history of reoffending and the family’s inability to support any rehabilitative progress, the Accused’s prospects of rehabilitation appear poor. In these circumstances, the need for deterrence assumes greater prominence in this case.

40 On the reasons elaborated above, I found that deterrence had come to the fore as the dominant sentencing consideration in this case; not rehabilitation. Reformative training was therefore not an appropriate sentence on the facts and circumstances of this case.

41 Since deterrence had displaced the emphasis on rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration, I next considered the appropriate term of imprisonment.

42 The sentencing approach and framework were laid down in Kunasekaran S/O Kalimuthu Somasundara v PP [2018] SGHC 9 (“Kunasekaran”). The court would consider offence-specific factors such as the degree of sexual exploitation, the circumstances of the offence and the harm caused to the victim and then place the offence within three bands of imprisonment. As set out by the Prosecution: ³⁸

(a) Band 1 (less than 5 months’ imprisonment): This includes cases that do not present any, or at most one, of the offence-specific factors, and typically involves cases that involve a fleeting touch or no skin-to-skin contact, and no intrusion into the victim’s private parts;

(b) Band 2 (5 to 15 months’ imprisonment): This includes cases where two or more of the offence-specific factors present themselves. The lower end of the band involves cases where the private parts of the victim are intruded, but there is no skin-to-skin contact. The higher end of the band involves cases where there is skin-to-skin contact with the victim’s private parts. It would also involve cases where there was the use of deception;

(c) Band 3 (15 to 24 months’ imprisonment): This includes cases where numerous offence-specific factors present themselves, especially factors such as the exploitation of a particularly vulnerable victim, a serious abuse of a position of trust, and/or the use of violence or force on the victim.

43 Thereafter, the court would consider offender-specific aggravating and mitigating factors, including charges taken into consideration, lack of remorse, plea of guilt or presence of a mental disorder or intellectual disability that relates to the offence. ³⁹

44 Bearing in mind the legislative amendments which provided an increase in the penalty for offences under section 354 of the Penal Code, it would be a principled approach to adjust the bands accordingly to consider the full range of permissible sentences: ⁴⁰

a) Band 1: Less than 7.5 months;

b) Band 2: 7.5 to 22.5 months;

c) Band 3 : 22.5 to 36 months

45 The offence would fall within Band 2 of the Kunasekaran framework. In this offence, the Accused had put the victim’s hand skin-to-skin on his private part. He had taken advantage of the victim when she was asleep to do so. Whilst there was no clear evidence to suggest premeditation, the sequence of deliberate physical steps — undressing himself, then manipulating the victim’s hand to touch his private part, points to purposeful conduct rather than a momentary lapse of judgment or impulsiveness.

46 Bearing in mind the offender-specific factors including the fact that the Accused was a first offender and had pleaded guilty in Stage 1, I was of the view that the Prosecution’s sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was an appropriate one. Like the Prosecution, I was similarly prepared to place weight on the Accused’s age at the time of the commission of the offence.

47 It was necessary to impose caning. Where the outrage of modesty involves the intrusion upon the victim’s private parts or sexual organs, caning is usually warranted. ⁴¹ Even though the contact was the victim’s hand on the Accused's private part in this case, I was of the view that a victim being compelled to touch an offender’s private part is equally violating and intrusive. Moreover, fact that the victim was asleep and her hand physically manipulated without her consent were aggravating features that reinforce the case for caning. Once again mindful of the age of the Accused at the time of the commission of the offence, I imposed only one stroke of the cane.

48 This offence would fall within Band 2 of the Kunasekaran framework. This charge involved two acts of touching in one incident — the breasts and the vagina — even though both were over clothing. Like MAC 910906/2025, the Accused had taken advantage of the victim when she was asleep. I further agree with the Prosecution that seen alongside the charges which had been taken into consideration, there was a sustained pattern of offending where the Accused repeatedly targeted the victim's breasts, with this particular incident representing an escalation to also touching her vagina.

49 Considering similar factors as in [46], I was of the view that a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, as sought for by the Prosecution, was a fair one. No caning was necessary on this charge.

50 The imprisonment terms were ordered to run concurrently. The total sentence was: 12 months’ imprisonment and one stroke of the cane. I was satisfied that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was an appropriate one.

51 In sentencing, the sentence imposed must achieve its objective. Deterrence was the dominant consideration in this case. Whilst Defence Counsel put forward a very compelling case that a term of RT would, in practical terms, result in a longer period of detention (and thus a seemingly harsher outcome) ⁴² than an imprisonment term for the Accused, the length of incarceration alone cannot and should not determine the sentence. It would be remiss of this Court to impose RT simply because it entailed a longer period of incarceration than an imprisonment term, however well that might seem to befit the gravity of the offence.

52 Since deterrence had displaced rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration, a term of imprisonment was the appropriate sentence and sent the right signal to the Accused and to like-minded offenders. The nature of the sentence, and what it communicates, is more needful than the length of incarceration alone.

53 The Accused is on bail pending the hearing of this appeal.