Voyeurism in Singapore: perspectives of a criminal defence lawyer

Back to Criminal Law publications

Gloria James
Gloria James-Civetta & Co, Singapore
gloria@gjclaw.com.sg

Introduction

In the most recent 2019 Global Law and Order Report conducted by the analytics and advisory company firm Gallup, Singapore was reported to have topped the list in Gallup’s Law and Order Index. The Index is a worldwide gauge asking four questions to evaluate a society’s sense of personal security and experience with their local crime and law enforcement.

The city-state of Singapore prides itself as one of the safest countries with the lowest crime rates in the world.

However, it is a common sight to see posters reflecting the tagline ‘Low Crime Doesn’t Mean No Crime’ in public areas being put up by the Singapore Police Force (SPF). These posters serve as an apt reminder for citizens never to take Singapore’s safe environment for granted.

The author, a Singapore criminal defence lawyer, reflects on how the advent of the internet age and the ease of obtaining spy cameras/mobile devices, has undermined security enjoyed by residents and rendered voyeurism crimes capable of being carried out more easily. Technology has created a lively market online for ‘upskirt’ videos and photos. As a result, the number of offenders who commit voyeurism has increased.

For clarity, the terms voyeurism offences and ‘upskirt’ offences in this article are used interchangeably.

What does the term ‘upskirt’ mean?

The term ‘upskirt’ refers to the illegal and voyeuristic act of taking photographs or video recordings to capture the crotch area or underclothes beneath a woman’s skirt/dress without the individual’s consent.

In a similar vein, although, not as commonly used as ‘upskirt’, the term ‘downblouse’ refers to the illegal and voyeuristic act of taking photos or video recordings from the top of a woman’s attire to capture her bosom without consent.

Statistics on voyeurism offences in Singapore

It is safe to say that published statistics only scratch the surface of the true extent of Singapore’s voyeurism problem. Given the minute size of these spy cameras/devices, victims are unable to detect if they have fallen prey. It is also safe to say that many cases go unreported for reasons including but not limited to the victim’s refusal to recount the traumatic incident repeatedly to the relevant authorities.

The available data shows there have been more than 500 insult of modesty cases filed annually in Singapore involving the use of spy cameras since 2015.

Legislation governing voyeurism

Before 1 January 2020, voyeurism was punishable under Section 29 and 30 of the Films Act (Chapter 107) and Section 509 ‘Insult of Modesty of a Woman’ in the Penal Code (Chapter 224) (Penal Code). The provision in the Penal Code provides that an individual can face a prison sentence of up to a year and be fined for each count of insult of modesty of a woman. The law has had to keep pace with the rise in the use of technology to facilitate the committing of these offences and social media has been used as a tool to spread awareness of the existence of these offences among citizens. Harsher penalties have needed to be meted out to serve as a deterrent and for public policy reasons.

Based on the author’s experience and case law, the sentences for offenders guilty of an offence for insulting a woman’s modesty range between three to 14 weeks’ imprisonment, depending on the facts in the individual case.

The sentencing considerations taken into account for offences of this nature include but are not limited to the:

• degree of planning and pre-meditation;

• degree of intrusion;

• use of a recording device;

• offender’s plea of guilt;

• offender’s degree of remorse; and

• offender’s propensity for reform and rehabilitation.

Aware of the need for the law to reflect shifting social values and keeping up with technology, the Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC) comprising judges, lawyers, academics and Ministry officials was formed in 2016. After two years of extensive review, the PCRC submitted a 500-page report with 169 recommendations to the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam in August 2018. Of the 169 recommendations, the recommendations with respect to voyeurism are the creation of a specific offence involving:

• the observation of a person in circumstances where the person could reasonably expect privacy; and

• the making, distribution, possession and accessing voyeuristic recordings.

Parliament’s intention was clearly reflected in the Second Reading of the Criminal Law Reform Bill on 6 May 2019. Briefly, parliament recognised the inadequacy of present legislation and a clear need to send a strong signal to deter the spread of voyeuristic recordings.

Following parliament’s adoption of the PCRC’s recommendations, the author makes the following observations with respect to the new offences, which came into force on 1 January 2020:

1. The offence of insult of modesty pursuant to Section 377BA of the Penal Code is now gender-neutral, and applicable to both man and woman.

2. The penalties for an offence of voyeurism pursuant to Section 377BB of the Penal Code has doubled. Offenders may be punished with a two-year sentence, or fined or with the imposition of corporal punishment (judicial caning) or both.

3. The distribution of voyeuristic recordings pursuant to Section 377BC of the Penal Code attracts a higher punishment of a maximum five-year imprisonment and the imposition of a fine or corporal punishment.

Experience in representing clients who committed voyeurism

The author notes it is too premature to assess the implications of these harsher penalties on the problem of voyeurism in Singapore given that the recent changes only came into effect on 1 January 2020. As of the date of submitting this article, two arrests for voyeurism have been made by the SPF, falling within the realm of new offences, particularly Section 377BB of the Penal Code. The same has been published on the SPF website.

As a criminal defence lawyer in Singapore, the author has had the opportunity to represent clients from different backgrounds who have committed voyeurism offences at different stages of their lives. From a dejected 18-year-old teenager accompanied by his worried mother who attempts to provide excuses for actions of her beloved child, to a remorseful individual who was a scholar in school and excelled in his employment and, to an individual in denial who insists on taking the case to trial despite the evidence showing otherwise.

In conclusion, the author recognises the importance of providing hope and realistic expectations to her clients as a criminal defence lawyer in Singapore.

Back to Criminal Law publications