SINGAPORE: The Court of Appeal on Friday (Aug 8) dismissed the appeal of a man convicted of sexually assaulting his wife, finding that the trial judge was right to convict him and sentence him to eight years’ jail and six strokes of the cane.
At the time, it was the first case that considered a spousal relationship and whether it could give rise to the abuse or breach of trust in sexual offences, after marital immunity for rape was fully repealed in Singapore in January 2020.
The 39-year-old man had claimed trial to two charges of sexual assault by penetration against his wife on Jul 13, 2020.
He also contested one count of obstructing justice in October 2020, by trying to get his wife, now 40, to withdraw the allegation against him.
Neither can be named due to a gag order protecting the wife’s identity.
The man was convicted of all charges.
On Friday, his lawyers, Ms N K Anitha and Mr Vinit Chhabra, tried to urge the court to dismiss the conviction and to allow them to present fresh evidence to show that the wife was not a credible witness.
DEFENCE CITES “HIGHLY SEXUAL” NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP
Ms Anitha’s arguments centred on the wife’s evidence, highlighting “inconsistencies” that made it “dangerous” for the court to convict the man. The wife has since served divorce papers to him in prison.
The lawyer urged the court, comprising Justices Tay Yong Kwang, Belinda Ang and Woo Bih Li, to consider the “highly sexual nature” of the couple’s relationship.
At the time, they had been married for more than eight years, and to expect sexual intimacy between a married couple to be “predicated by express consent” is “contrived and unrealistic”, she said.
However, the court pointed out that the context was different this time because the husband had just moved back to stay with the wife after a period of separation.
Ms Anitha responded that her client had access to the house, and had been sneaked in by his wife on at least eight to 10 occasions for them to have sexual intimacy.
This was over and above them going on family trips and being sexually active, she said.
Justice Tay said there was “obviously some strain” at the time, as the wife had initially refused to let the man return home and agreed only after intervention by other family members.
Ms Anitha argued that the wife had “demonstrated a readiness to tailor her evidence to suit her narrative”, with a medical report for certain injuries being inconsistent with her claim of being punched many times.
Justice Tay said the main issue in the hearing was whether the sex was consensual. While the wife may have been inconsistent on other things, the crux was whether she was consistent in saying the sex was without consent.
The defence argued that their client believed his wife had consented based on “good faith”, and based on his own interactions with his wife, which was the only context in which he could understand her.
The defence also asserted that the wife had a motive as she always intended to have sole custody, care and control of their two children, and to restrict the man’s access to them.
In response, Deputy Public Prosecutor Jane Lim said none of the alleged inconsistencies by the wife affected her credibility or her account regarding consent.
The woman had been consistent in her account of how she did not give consent, from closing her legs to her husband, telling him to stop and saying “stop violating me”.
UNANIMOUS DECISION
After hearing arguments, the court gave a unanimous decision dismissing the defence’s appeals against the conviction and sentence, as well as rejecting the application to present fresh evidence.
Justice Tay said fresh evidence should not be admitted at this appeal, because it would not have an important influence on the results.
This was because the man’s contentions are premised largely on the assumption that the “unusually convincing” standard of proof applied to this case.
This is in a situation of a sexual offence where it is only the victim’s word against the accused, and the victim’s evidence must therefore be “unusually convincing” – a legal standard with a high threshold to meet.
However, Justice Tay said this standard does not apply here as the wife’s evidence was not the sole basis for the conviction.
There was corroborating evidence in the communications between the man and his sister, in the first video-recorded interview with the police on Jul 14, 2020, and in the statement he gave to the police on Jul 15, 2020.
The apparent inconsistencies raised by the defence pertain to “minute details in relation to the penetration charges” and do not detract “in any way” from the woman’s assertion that the penetration had taken place without her consent, said Justice Tay.
The court found that the sentence of eight years’ jail and six strokes of the cane did not appear to be wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
The man, who sat in the dock in his prison outfit as he had been remanded for a period of time, showed little reaction to the verdict.
His loved ones in the public gallery had their hands in prayer poses.
They were allowed to speak to him before he was taken away.
