Man who took upskirt videos appeals for fine, but court says voyeurs will typically get jail
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
SINGAPORE – A 26-year-old man who took an upskirt video of a woman at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and another one of a teenager while he was out 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 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
The law against voyeurism came into force on Jan 1, 2020, and the crime carries up to two years’ jail, a fine, caning, or any combination of such punishments.
Before its enactment, voyeurs were prosecuted under a patchwork of laws, including the now-repealed offence of insulting a woman’s modesty.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 rise in voyeurism cases,
The emphasis on deterrence, said the court, is clear from the fact that the maximum prison term for voyeurism is double that for 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 of 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 girl
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 for only 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.
