Public Prosecutor v D’Almeida James Francis
Key facts
| Court | Magistrate Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Lim Tse Haw |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Chooi Jing Yen LLC, Chong Xin Zi Claire, Chooi Jing Yen, Gladys Lim |
Source: [2026] SGMC 26, Magistrate Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v D’Almeida James Francis [2026] SGMC 26 was decided in the Magistrate's Court by District Judge Lim Tse Haw, with grounds dated 23 February 2026. The accused, a 26-year-old concierge at a serviced apartment, pleaded guilty to intentionally recording a 27-year-old resident showering in the nude on 6 April 2025 by placing his handphone under the cubicle door, an offence under s 377BB(3) of the Penal Code 1871 punishable under s 377BB(7). A criminal trespass charge under s 447 was taken into consideration. The court applied the sentencing framework in Nicholas Tan Siew Chye v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 35, placing the case in the low harm and low culpability category with a starting point of ten weeks' imprisonment. After a 30% plea discount and weight given to his voyeuristic disorder and treatment, the court imposed six weeks' imprisonment. The accused appealed.
[2026] SGMC 26 explained
Public Prosecutor v D’Almeida James Francis ([2026] SGMC 26) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Magistrate Court on 23 February 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. 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 [2026] SGMC 26 about?
Public Prosecutor v D’Almeida James Francis ([2026] SGMC 26) is a Magistrate Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Offences — Voyeurism”, “Criminal Law — Offences — Property—Criminal Trespass”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Mentally disordered offenders”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGMC 26 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGMC 26 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 35. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Magistrate's Court sentenced D'Almeida James Francis, a 26-year-old concierge at a serviced apartment, who pleaded guilty to recording a resident showering in the nude by pointing his phone under a cubicle door on 6 April 2025, an offence under s 377BB(3) of the Penal Code 1871. A related criminal trespass charge was taken into consideration. Applying the Nicholas Tan framework and considering his voyeuristic disorder and treatment efforts, the court imposed six weeks' imprisonment. The accused appealed.
What was Public Prosecutor v D’Almeida James Francis about ([2026] SGMC 26)?
The accused, a concierge at a serviced apartment, pleaded guilty to recording a resident showering in the nude by pointing his phone under a cubicle door on 6 April 2025, an offence of voyeurism under s 377BB(3) of the Penal Code 1871.
What sentence did the court impose in [2026] SGMC 26?
The Magistrate's Court sentenced the accused to six weeks' imprisonment, from a starting point of ten weeks, after a 30% reduction for pleading guilty at Stage 1 and consideration of his voyeuristic disorder and treatment. He has appealed.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (6)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGMC 26)