A 41-year-old repeat offender has been sentenced to 28 weeks’ imprisonment after filming an illicit video of a woman on an escalator at Northpoint City in Yishun. The latest case marks his seventh jail sentence since 2018 for voyeurism-related offences.
The judge warned that the offender could face caning if he commits similar offences again, raising concerns about his repeated behaviour despite previous prison terms.
Woman Filmed at Northpoint City Escalator
The incident occurred on 20 June, when Gary Huang Kunjie followed a woman he found attractive onto an escalator at Northpoint City shopping mall.
Huang used his mobile phone to record a video beneath the woman’s skirt without her consent. According to reports, he later viewed the recording for sexual gratification.
On 8 July, officers from the Police Transport Command arrested him at Khatib MRT station. During police interviews, Huang admitted to recording similar videos involving around 20 women between May and June.
Investigators were reportedly unable to retrieve the recordings because he had deleted them after viewing them.
Long History of Repeated Voyeurism Offences
Huang’s history of offending dates back to 2009, when he reportedly recorded more than 90 videos of women over five days. He was subsequently diagnosed with paraphilia, a condition involving persistent and intense sexual interests that may, in some cases, involve non-consenting individuals.
In an earlier case, he received two years’ probation. However, he continued to commit similar offences, leading to further encounters with the law.
In 2018, Huang was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison after pleading guilty to taking upskirt videos. Police had recovered eight recordings from his mobile phone following a report involving Yishun Street 81.
The following year, he admitted to recording upskirt videos on 46 occasions between December 2018 and April 2019. He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment for those offences.
Repeated Jail Terms Failed to Stop Him
Huang was jailed again in 2020 for similar offences. Reports indicated that he resumed offending just three weeks after his release, resulting in another arrest and prison sentence in 2021.
In 2022, he returned to court for yet another voyeurism case and received a 36-week jail term. After a further period without a reported prison sentence, he was jailed again in 2025.
The latest offence adds to this record, with the court having to consider whether another period behind bars would be sufficient to prevent further incidents.
Judge Questions Whether Sentence Is Enough
During court proceedings on 23 October, prosecutors sought a jail term of between 22 and 25 weeks for the latest offence.
However, the judge questioned why the prosecution had not considered caning or corrective training, given Huang’s repeated offending despite previous sentences.
The prosecution explained that the current case involved only one charge. Nevertheless, the judge expressed concern that the proposed sentence might be too lenient to deter him from committing further offences.
Huang, who represented himself in court, told the judge that he regretted his actions. He attributed his behaviour partly to work-related stress and difficulties managing his mental health, which he said had affected his ability to maintain stable employment.
He also expressed regret over not doing more to care for his elderly parents.
Warning Issued Over Future Offences
When questioned about how he intended to change his behaviour, Huang said he needed to find work to occupy his time but also recognised the need to slow down and consider part-time employment.
Judge Arvindren pressed him on what concrete steps he would take to prevent another offence, given his repeated history of similar conduct.
The judge ultimately sentenced Huang to 28 weeks’ imprisonment, exceeding the prosecution’s request.
He was also given a clear warning that caning could be considered if he reoffended.
The case highlights the challenges courts face when dealing with repeat offenders, particularly where previous prison sentences have failed to prevent further violations. It also underscores the importance of respecting personal boundaries and protecting individuals from non-consensual recording in public spaces.