FAHD SIDDIQUI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 66 consider?

The judgment refers to Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 66 High Court (General Division) 13 March 2024 HC/MA 9185/2023/01 8 min read

4 cases cited

Outcome

Appeal allowed

I therefore allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of RT with an imprisonment term of seven days.

Source: [2024] SGHC 66, High Court (General Division), decided 13 March 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	13 March 2024
Judge	Tay Yong Kwang
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Criminal Law
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Lee & Lee, Faith Quek, Jacqueline Chua, Leong Kit Yu, Quek Mong Hua

Source: [2024] SGHC 66, High Court (General Division), decided 13 March 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Young offenders Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 — Corruptly attempting to obtain gratification

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Tay Yong Kwang Delivered

Counsel (6)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Lee & Lee Firm Faith Quek Counsel Appellant Jacqueline Chua Counsel Appellant Leong Kit Yu Counsel Respondent Quek Mong Hua Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Fahd Siddiqui Appellant

Case Significance

Fahd Siddiqui v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 66 was decided by the General Division of the High Court on 13 March 2024, with Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the grounds of decision after a hearing on 8 March 2024 in Magistrate's Appeal No 9185 of 2023. The appellant, Fahd Siddiqui, was a 21-year-old Singaporean who completed national service with the Singapore Police Force on 4 January 2024 and had been deployed as a Ground Response Force officer at the time of the offences in November 2022. According to the judgment, on 1 November 2022, when he was 20 years old, the appellant arranged to meet a social escort to enquire about sexual services priced at $400, then returned to the hotel room, showed his warrant card identifying himself as a police officer, and indicated he would report the escort to the police unless she provided free sexual services. The case concerned an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 of corruptly attempting to obtain gratification, and the appeal raised sentencing considerations for young offenders.

[2024] SGHC 66 explained

FAHD SIDDIQUI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 66) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 13 March 2024. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Criminal Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 66 about?

FAHD SIDDIQUI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 66) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Young offenders” and “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 — Corruptly attempting to obtain gratification”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 66 consider?

The judgment refers to Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Fahd Siddiqui, a 21-year-old Singaporean who had been a full-time police national serviceman, appealed against a sentence of reformative training after pleading guilty to corruptly attempting to obtain sexual services from a social escort as an inducement to refrain from taking enforcement action, an offence under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960, with a similar charge taken into consideration. The appeal concerned the appropriate sentence for the young offender. The court allowed the appeal and substituted the reformative training order with an imprisonment term of seven days, to commence on 11 March 2024.

What was Fahd Siddiqui v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 66 about?

[2024] SGHC 66 was a Magistrate's Appeal heard by Tay Yong Kwang JCA in the High Court concerning Fahd Siddiqui, a 21-year-old former Singapore Police Force national serviceman, in relation to corruptly attempting to obtain gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 and sentencing of young offenders.

What did the appellant in [2024] SGHC 66 do according to the judgment?

According to the judgment, the appellant met a social escort over enquiries about $400 sexual services, then returned and showed his police warrant card, indicating he would report the escort unless she provided free sexual services. He was 20 years old at the time of the November 2022 offence.