Voyeurism

A person convicted of voyeurism can be sentenced to up to 2 years' imprisonment, or a fine, or caning, or any combination of these (section 377BB(7)). Heavier punishment applies where the victim is below 14 years of age. Caning cannot be imposed on women, on men above 50 years of age at the time of sentencing, or on a person sentenced to death.

Section 377BB covers a range of related conduct — not only observing or recording a person, but also operating equipment to do so, and installing or adapting equipment or a structure for that purpose — each of which is an offence in its own right. The punishment is more severe where the offence is committed against a person below 14 years of age.

The main issues in a voyeurism case are usually consent and intention. A defence may turn on whether the other person in fact consented to being observed or recorded; whether the accused intended to observe or record, or to enable someone else to do so; or whether the accused knew, or had reason to believe, that the other person did not consent. Factual disputes — such as whether it was the accused who operated the equipment — may also arise. Each case is decided on its particular facts.

Within the 2-year maximum, the court decides the sentence using the approach set out by a three-judge High Court in Nicholas Tan Siew Chye v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 35. Unlike molestation or rape, voyeurism is not divided into fixed year-bands. Instead, the court first assesses the seriousness of the offence by weighing the harm caused and the offender's culpability to fix a starting point, and then adjusts it for factors personal to the offender. The court has made clear that deterrence is the main consideration in these cases.

In assessing harm and culpability, the court looks at matters such as:

• the harm caused — the invasion of the victim's privacy; any physical contact with the victim; and any humiliation, alarm or distress, particularly where the victim became aware of what happened;
• the offender's culpability — whether the accused knew, or merely had reason to believe, that there was no consent; the degree of planning or premeditation; whether an image was actually recorded; and whether any recording was kept or shared with others.