For over two decades it was assumed that where a completed offence carried a mandatory minimum sentence, an attempt to commit it carried the same minimum. In CRH, the High Court and then the Court of Appeal held that, for aggravated rape under the pre-2019 Penal Code, that assumption was wrong.
The case
The accused pleaded guilty to two charges of attempted aggravated statutory rape committed in 2013, against a young child. The offences were charged under the Penal Code as it stood before the 2019 amendments. The completed offence carried a mandatory minimum of eight years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. The question was whether that minimum also applied to an attempt.
The High Court
In Public Prosecutor v CRH [2024] SGHC 34, the High Court held that it did not, declining to follow the observations in Ho Wee Fah. It also held that the 2019 amendment freeing courts from mandatory minimums for attempts did not apply retrospectively. The accused was sentenced to an aggregate of 13 years’ imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane.
The Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal agreed with the result, with its own reasoning (at [22]–[34]):
- Section 375 creates a single offence of rape. The enhanced punishment in section 375(3) applies only where the basic offence is proved together with an additional aggravating fact; it does not create a separate offence (at [26]–[28]).
- That enhanced regime presupposes a completed offence, so it has no application to an attempt (at [32]).
- A purposive reading led to the same place: Parliament intended attempts to be punished less severely, and applying the minimum would produce a very narrow sentencing range that could make an attempt as serious as the completed offence (at [33]).
- Earlier cases had assumed the opposite without the point being argued (at [8]).
- Whether minimums for other offences extend to attempts depends on the specific statutory text (at [35]).
On sentence, the Court of Appeal found the aggregate of 13 years and 16 strokes not manifestly excessive, and the appeal on sentence was dismissed (at [36]–[41]). It also made clear that the Prosecution’s position on sentence does not bind the court (at [38]–[40]).
Our role
Akesh Abhilash acted for the accused. The argument that the mandatory minimum does not reach an attempt succeeded in the High Court and was upheld by the Court of Appeal (at [22]–[34]), departing from an assumption that had stood since Ho Wee Fah in 1998.
Why it matters
The decision affects every attempt charged under the pre-2019 Penal Code where the completed offence carries a mandatory minimum, and shows the value of testing long-standing assumptions. Our guide on lex mitior explains the separate argument about retrospective application of the 2019 amendment.
Common questions
Do mandatory minimum sentences apply to attempted offences in Singapore?
It depends on the statute. For aggravated rape under the pre-2019 Penal Code, the Court of Appeal held they do not. For offences committed from 2020, section 512(3)(a) of the amended Penal Code provides that the court is not bound to impose a mandatory minimum for an attempt.
Is the court bound by the Prosecution’s sentencing submissions?
No. Sentencing is for the court. An accused person should not assume that an understanding with the Prosecution on sentence will bind the court.
Akesh Abhilash is a Singapore disputes lawyer with eleven years in practice, acting in commercial, cross-border and criminal matters before the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the State Courts and international tribunals. Read his profile.