Outrage of modesty is an offence under Section 354 of the Penal Code 1871 of Singapore (“PC”). The Penal Code does not specifically define the term “modesty,” therefore, factors such as the circumstances in which the incident happened and the victim’s beliefs and race, can be relevant factors in determining if his or her modesty has been outraged.
This section covers a wide range of acts such as inappropriate touching, groping, exposing oneself to another and other unwelcome advances. Physical contact is not always necessary and gestures or behaviours that intimidate or violate personal boundaries can also constitute outrage of modesty. It can happen anywhere from dark and secluded areas to crowded public areas such as on public transport, at the workplace, and even at public gatherings. Precedence suggests that for an act to be considered an outrage of modesty there must be a lack of consent and the perpetrator must possess the requisite intent.
The section is also gender-neutral and is not limited to acts by men against women. This means that a woman can also be convicted under this section. While upskirt offences were previously also prosecuted as an outrage of modesty, the Penal Code now specifically recognises this as committing an offence of voyeurism, punishable under Section 377BB of the Penal Code.
Section 511 of the Penal Code additionally provides that if a person who has the intention of committing an offence takes a substantial step towards the same, then the attempt shall also be punishable. This means that a perpetrator can be convicted of attempting to outrage another’s modesty even if eventually he or she was unsuccessful.
Penalties for Outrage of Modesty
If convicted of outrage of modesty, penalties range from jail time (up to three years), a fine, caning, or any combination of these. The severity depends on all the facts of the case including the nature of the contact, the harm caused, and any premeditation.
In Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor [2018] 4 SLR 580 (“Kunasekaran”), the court set down the framework below to determine the penalties based on the seriousness of the offence. The court will first consider the offence-specific factors such as:
- The degree of sexual exploitation, where the court will note what parts of the victim’s body the perpetrator touched, how the perpetrator touched the victim, and for how long.
- The circumstances of the offence, including the presence or absence of premeditation, any use of force or violence, abuse of a position of trust, use of deception, or exploitation of a vulnerable victim.
- The harm caused to the victim, be it physical or psychological.
Having considered the offence-specific factors, the court will place the offence within any of the three following bands of imprisonment:
Band 1: Fleeting touch or no skin-to-skin contact and no intrusion in the victim’s private parts – less than five months’ imprisonment.
Band 2: The lower end of this band involves cases where the private parts of the victim are intruded upon 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. This band also includes cases where there is use of deception – five to 15 months’ imprisonment.
Band 3: This band includes cases such as the exploitation of a particularly vulnerable victim, a serious abuse of a position of trust and the use of violence or force – 15 to 24 months’ imprisonment.
The court will then go on to consider factors specific to the perpetrator to decide what should be the appropriate final sentence. Such factors typically include the presence or lack of remorse of the perpetrator, whether the perpetrator had relevant antecedents which demonstrate recalcitrance or any mental or intellectual disability suffered by the perpetrator which relates to the offence.
In Kunasekaran, the court also noted that general deterrence ought to be the predominant sentencing consideration in the context of an offence committed on board public transport.
Harsher penalties also apply when the victim is under 14, punishable under Section 354(2):
Band 1: Less than 1 year of imprisonment, generally no caning.
Band 2: One to three years’ imprisonment, at least three strokes of the cane.
Band 3: Three to five years’ imprisonment, at least six strokes of the cane.
It should also be noted that harsher penalties apply for offences committed in a lift under Section 354A PC, or against domestic helpers under Section 74 PC where the court can sentence the perpetrator to twice the maximum punishment for the offence.
The fourth schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 of Singapore includes outrage of modesty punishable under Section 354(1) PC as an offence which may be compounded by the victim. This means that if the victim arrives at a settlement with the perpetrator, no further action will be taken or if the perpetrator had already been charged, then a discharge amounting to an acquittal will be issued.
Rights and Legal Guidance for the Accused
Consulting a criminal lawyer in Singapore is crucial for accused persons. Legal representation helps ensure that the accused understands the charges, their rights, and potential defences. Lawyers also work to assist the court to arrive at the appropriate sentence.
Consult a Criminal Defence Lawyer in Singapore at Christopher Bridges Law Corporation
Outrage of modesty is a criminal offence in Singapore that aims to protect personal dignity and privacy from invasive and unwanted advances. With severe penalties and preventive guidance, Singapore emphasises both accountability for offenders and safety for all citizens.
If you have been accused of an outrage of modesty, enlisting the services of a criminal lawyer in Singapore is essential to ensure that your rights are protected and your case is handled in an effective manner. Christopher Bridges Law Corporation is well-versed in the nuances of criminal law and is committed to providing strategic and important legal advice and support for our clients.
Please feel free to get in touch with our criminal law firm in Singapore today via phone at (+65) 6323 2328 or via email at seccbridges@cbridgeslaw.com to navigate the legal process with confidence.
