LAW 505 – CRIMINAL LAW

SUMMARY OF CASES

Name: Nur Fatehah binti Zolkifli

Student ID: 2019128527
[1988] 1 MLJ 156
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TEO ENG CHAN & ORS
OCRJ SINGAPORE P
UNCH COOMARASWAMY J
CRIMINAL CASE NO 30 OF 1986
3 November 1987

i. Summary of the facts

The complainant referred as “Kay” was a 16 years old girl who lived at Woodlands
Road. Kay worked at a snack bar at Bukit Timah Shopping Centre. She worked from
The accused, Teo happened to come to the snack bar where Kay worked. They met
each other after Kay pestered her when she was doing her duty, on Sunday, 1st
September 1985. Kay gave her telephone number to Teo. Night after, Teo gave her
a phone call and asked her out for a movie show.

After the film show, he brought Kay to a nearby flat and tried to have sex with her
and gave her a love-bite but Kay refused. The next day, the second accused, Ng
met Kay when she was on her way back home. Ng teased her about the love bite
on her neck and offered her a ride with his friend’s lorry. Kay refused. Later on,
one or more of the accused met her and invited her for a ride but she refused.
Only after Sim, whose lorry was to be used, told her that her home was on his own
way home, then she accepted the invitation. She ended up being with a five guy
inside of the lorry. Sim, drove the lorry along a muddy road and ended up in the
deserted quarry and for sex from Kay. The five of the accused ended up had sex
with Kay inside of the cabin, without her consent. Kay screamed and cried during
the forced intercourse before sending her home.
 Issue
The issue in this case is whether the four accused was liable for committing a
sexual intercourse without consent towards Kay and whether the four accused had
reasonably believed that Kay consented the sexual intercourse with each of them
and if this act falls under mistake of facts.

Held
It was held three of the accused of aggravated rape as charged and Yap of the
lesser offence of simple rape.

ii. Legal Principle

In order for the accused to be held liable for the for committing a sexual
intercourse without consent towards Kay, several provisions have been used by
court. Section 107 of Evidence Act stated that, when it comes to bringing the case
within a general exception, the burden of proof lies on accused, and the proof
must be beyond reasonable doubt. In case of DPP v Morgan, it had been stated
that, if an accused in fact believed that the woman had consented, he could not
be found guilty on rape, whether or not that belief was based on reasonable
ground. However, a strong evidence is needed in order to show that they believed
that the complainant had consented the sexual intercourse. The trial judge, inter
alia, accepted Kay as a witness of truth, and also found her evidence as a
complainant in a rape case. “More than adequately corroborated” by her
statement to her doctor within 14 hours after the events, and being made “as
speedily as could reasonably in the circumstances be expected of her,” and having
regard to her youth.