The court said the commission of voyeurism offences, which entail the use of equipment to observe the private region of others without their consent, involves an appalling attempt to invade the victim’s privacy. — Photo by Conny Schneider on Unsplash
SINGAPORE: A 26-year-old man who took an upskirt video of a woman on the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) campus, then committed the same offence on a teen while he was on bail, appealed against his jail term, asking for a fine.
A three-judge High Court panel denied the request by Nicholas Tan Siew Chye, saying that there was nothing about his case that suggests that the interests of deterrence would be adequately met by imposing a fine.
In written grounds of decision issued on Friday, the court said voyeurism cases involving the recording of “up-skirt” or “down-blouse” pictures and videos will typically cross the custodial threshold, given the intrinsic seriousness of the offence.
But the court cut Tan’s jail term from seven weeks to four weeks, after setting out a sentencing framework for such offences.
The offence of voyeurism came into force on Jan 1, 2020, and carries up to two years’ jail, a fine, caning, or any combination of such punishments.
Prior to its enactment, voyeurs were prosecuted under a patchwork of laws including the now-repealed offence of insulting a woman’s modesty.
The court said the commission of such offences, which entail the use of equipment to observe the private region of others without their consent, involves an appalling attempt to invade the victim’s privacy.
A deterrent sentence would usually be warranted, said the court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Tay Yong Kwang and Vincent Hoong.
The court also noted the increasing prevalence of voyeurism offences, in part attributable to technological advancements that have made it easier for offenders to be discreet in taking videos.
The emphasis on deterrence, said the court, was clear from the fact that the maximum prison term for voyeurism was double that for the insulting of modesty.
The court also set out a framework to guide judges in future cases and to achieve consistency in sentencing.
Under the framework, the judge first identifies the level of harm caused and the level of the offender’s culpability.
Types of harm include the invasion of privacy and the violation of bodily integrity.
Factors going into culpability include the degree of premeditation; stalking or following the victim; the sophistication of equipment used; and the breach of a relationship of trust with the victim.
At the least severe end, cases involving low levels of harm and culpability fall within an indicative punishment range of a fine or up to four months’ jail.
At the other end, cases involving high levels of harm and culpability fall within an indicative punishment range of 1½ to two years’ jail with caning.
The sentence is then adjusted to take into account factors specific to the offender and his overall criminality.
In Tan’s case, the court found that his offences involved low levels of harm and culpability.
He was a final-year NTU student in October 2020 when he followed a 20-year-old woman to the lift lobby at a residential hall, squatted down, and positioned his phone under her dress.
In February 2021, four months after he was arrested and released on bail for the first offence, he took an upskirt video of a 17-year-old teen after following her into a lift.
The court reasoned that the invasion of privacy was limited, as he deleted the videos shortly after he took them. The court also noted that he followed the two victims only for a brief duration.
The court imposed a one-week term for the first offence and a three-week term for the second. The two terms were to run consecutively. – The Straits Times (Singapore)/Asia News Network
