The High Court has allowed the Public Prosecutor’s appeal against sentence, finding that a six-month jail term and one stroke of whipping imposed on a massage therapist convicted of outraging the modesty of a male client was inadequate.
The ruling was delivered by Judicial Commissioner Muhammed Faisal PDJLD Colonel (Rtd) DSP Haji Kefli on July 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2026.
The respondent, Peter Jun Peteros Sasuman, had pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 354 of the Penal Code, Chapter 22, arising from an incident at a wellness centre in Kiulap on September 27, 2025.
During the massage session, the complainant was unclothed save for a towel. The respondent repeatedly rubbed his hand against the complainant’s bare inner thigh and scrotum on four occasions. The Court also noted that the respondent had asked inappropriate personal questions and lowered the towel covering the complainant’s genital area.
The respondent had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and had no previous convictions.
The Magistrate had identified several aggravating factors, including the repeated touching, direct skin-to-skin contact, the complainant’s vulnerability and the respondent’s abuse of professional trust. Applying the sentencing guideline in Public Prosecutor v Normajili bin Napir, the Magistrate adopted a starting point of nine months’ imprisonment before imposing six months’ imprisonment and one stroke of whipping after taking the guilty plea into account.
The respondent, represented by lawyer Czar Calabazaron of Messrs Rudi Lee, Annie Kon & Associates, argued that the sentence imposed was within the permissible sentencing range and was not manifestly inadequate. Counsel submitted that the Magistrate had properly applied the established guideline in Public Prosecutor v Normajili bin Napir, and cautioned against creating new sentencing categories, particularly in relation to skin-to-skin contact.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Jordan Tiah Teck Chun appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the cumulative aggravating circumstances.
The High Court agreed that the case was more serious than the ordinary cases contemplated by Normajili. The Court held that while Normajili remains an important sentencing guideline, it is not a fixed sentencing rule, and a higher starting point may be justified where aggravating circumstances are present, provided the reasons are clearly stated.
The Court highlighted the repeated nature of the touching, the involvement of the complainant’s bare scrotum and inner thigh, direct skin-to-skin contact, the complainant’s vulnerability and the abuse of professional trust.
The High Court adopted a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of whipping. After applying a one-third reduction for the respondent’s guilty plea, the sentence was reduced to 10 months’ imprisonment and two strokes of whipping.
The appeal was allowed and the original sentence was set aside.
The respondent was accordingly sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment and two strokes of whipping.
The custodial sentence was ordered to take effect from the date ordered by the Magistrate’s court.