All three types of rape equally serious, says High Court as it dismisses man’s appeal

All three types of rape recognised by the law should be treated as being equal in severity, the High Court said on April 21.

Justice Dedar Singh Gill made the ruling as he dismissed the appeal of a man who argued that the type of rape he had committed was a less serious form of the offence.

The offender had raped the granddaughter of his religious teacher between November 2021 and January 2023 by forcing the girl, who was between nine and 11 years old at the time, to perform oral sex on him.

The man was 21 years old when he was sentenced in 2024 to eight years’ jail and eight strokes of the cane.

He argued at his appeal that the act he committed was a less serious form of rape, and thus, rehabilitation should be the main sentencing consideration because he was a youthful offender.

In Singapore, younger offenders are usually sentenced with rehabilitation as the primary aim, as the courts recognise their higher chances for reform. However, this aim may be displaced, or eclipsed, by other considerations in cases where the offence is serious.

The man cannot be named due to a gag order to protect the girl’s identity.

In January 2020, Parliament amended the law to expand the scope of rape to include oral and anal penetration.

The previous definition covered only penile-vaginal penetration.

The change means that the law now recognises three types of rape, which is an offence under Section 375 of the Penal Code.

The offender in the current case had attended religious classes conducted by his neighbour since he was 14 years old.

The teacher, who held the classes at her flat, had a granddaughter who stayed with her on weekdays.

One evening in November 2021, after the class ended, the culprit, who was then 18 years old, sat with the girl on a sofa.

After the teacher fell asleep, he committed an indecent act with the victim, then forced her to perform oral sex on him.

After this incident, he committed similar acts with her on three other occasions.

The final incident took place on Jan 23, 2023, when he was 19. 

Later that month, on Jan 31, the victim was referred to the school counsellor after her teacher caught her writing notes in school.

After some questioning, she revealed that the culprit had touched her inappropriately.

The victim’s family was informed, and a police report was lodged.

On Feb 20, 2024, the man pleaded guilty to two charges of rape.

Six other charges, for sexual offences against the same victim, were taken into consideration in sentencing.

After he was handed a jail term and caning, he appealed to the High Court, arguing that he should be sentenced to reformative training instead. The prosecution disagreed.

Both sides could not agree on whether certain precedents can be relied upon, as they relate to a different type of rape.

The Court of Appeal had, in a separate case, elaborated that if a youthful offender “of mature age and understanding” has been convicted of rape, rehabilitation will usually be displaced as the primary consideration during sentencing.

However, that case was decided in the context of penile-vaginal rape.

The High Court had to consider whether the two types of rape can be equated with each other, to determine if the principles stated by the Court of Appeal can be applied in the current case.

The offender argued that the Court of Appeal decision did not apply, as he had committed a less serious form of rape.

He argued that the two types of rape are located in separate subsections of Section 375.

He also argued that one type of rape carries the unique risk of unwanted pregnancy, making it the most serious of sexual offences.

The prosecution argued that Parliament intended for both types of rape to be treated with equal gravity.

It said that by expanding the definition of rape, Parliament recognised that other types of penile penetration warranted the label of rape and ought to be punished as such.

In his written judgment, Justice Gill said he was persuaded by the prosecution’s arguments. He said the legislative structure and plain wording of the amended Section 375 indicates that the two types of rape are to be treated equally.

The punishment provisions do not distinguish between the different types of rape, the judge noted.

More importantly, the separation of the different types of rape into subsections simply reflected the fact that, as a matter of logic, one type can only be perpetrated against a woman whereas the other two types can be perpetrated against either a man or a woman.

The judge said the risk of unwanted pregnancy, in itself, cannot subvert the legislative intention to regard all types of rape with the same gravity.

Justice Gill said it was appropriate to decide the present case according to the principles stated by the Court of Appeal.

In other words, rehabilitation was no longer the dominant sentencing consideration for the offender.

Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

JCU v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 71

Sumiko at 61: Employer thinks you are too old? Here’s how the laws protect you - Opinion Non-practising lawyers also play role in upholding trust in legal system, rule of law: Chief Justice