Two cases illustrate this point. First is the case of the former Grab driver who was accused, and subsequently acquitted, of attempting to rape an intoxicated 19-year-old passenger in 2018.
The defence argued that the sex acts were consensual, relying on the woman’s participation in oral sex and that moaning was heard in in-car audio clips. The defence argued that, even if the sex acts were not consensual, the man was mistaken and held the reasonable belief that she consented. It would thus have been necessary to question the complainant on her actions that would have given rise to his belief, mistaken or otherwise, that she had consented.
Second is the case of the tutor who was convicted of molesting a 10-year-old student. Questions about the victim’s attire had been permitted because they were in relation to an inconsistency regarding whether the offender had touched her over or under her dress. These questions, opined Justice Vincent Hoong, did not perpetuate the harmful stereotype that sexual assault is provoked by what the victim wears.
VICTIM-BLAMING ISN’T IN THE ACCUSED’S INTERESTS
So, whether a line of questions crosses the line is highly fact-specific and depends entirely on whether it is relevant to the accused’s defence. What is appropriate in one case may not be for the next.
In Panfilov’s case, questions may have included some of the factors raised by Mr Chia. For example, Panfilov’s lawyer raised several issues regarding the victim’s evidence, such as her giving Panfilov her home address so that he could call a private-hire vehicle to send her home after the incident. In convicting Panfilov, however, the court found that the victim had reasonable explanations for most of these difficulties.
