SINGAPORE: A former teacher who was sentenced to jail and caning for molesting a 12-year-old girl who was at his home for a sleepover with his daughter has lost his appeal against conviction.
The man, who cannot be named to protect the victim’s identity, had claimed trial in a district court and was sentenced in March to 23 months’ jail and three strokes of the cane.
He filed the appeal while in jail, arguing among other things that evidence from his smart watch at the time showed that he was in a deep sleep and could not have molested the girl.
In dismissing the appeal, Justice See Kee Oon found that the ex-teacher had not led any evidence to show that the sleep data captured by his watch was reliable.
According to a judgment made available on Saturday (Nov 9), the man and the mother of the victim were teachers at a school in Singapore.
The two families were close and stayed in the same block.
On Feb 27, 2021, the families went out for dinner. The appellant’s eight-year-old daughter and the 12-year-old victim asked for permission to have a sleepover at the appellant’s home after dinner.
The victim changed outfits at her own home before heading to the appellant’s unit for the allowed sleepover.
That night, the victim sat on the top bunk of a bunk bed in the appellant’s daughter’s room.
The two girls sat side by side, stretched out their legs under a duvet and had their heads propped up by pillows.
They used phones to design outfits on a mobile phone application, with the appellant’s daughter commenting on the outfits designed by the victim.
Past midnight, the appellant stood beside the bunk bed, on the right of the victim.
AT TRIAL
At trial, the prosecution’s case was that the man molested the victim under the duvet, shocking her.
The victim did not inform her friend beside her, as she “did not want to scar” her. Instead, she continued to design outfits on the app and said a few times that she was tired and they should sleep.
Eventually, the appellant, who is now in his early 40s, stopped molesting the victim.
After leaving the home the next morning, the girl told her close friend that something had happened during the sleepover that could get the police involved.
She later told her mother that the appellant had touched her and made a record of the incident in her notebook.
At trial, the man stated that he had not touched the victim inappropriately as he was not tall enough to touch her on the upper bunk in the way she described.
Or, he would not have been able to do so without his elbow sticking out in “an obvious and awkward manner”.
He also pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s evidence, saying they cast doubt on its reliability.
The man also pointed to data from his smart watch which he claimed directly contradicted the victim’s account and showed that he was in deep sleep at the time of the alleged offence.
The victim had stated that the offence occurred at 1.57am. At the time, data from the man’s watch indicated that he was asleep and could not have committed the offence.
The man also pointed to the evidence of his daughter, who testified that she had not noticed anything unusual during the night.
APPEAL ARGUMENTS
In his appeal, the man argued that the district judge had made several errors including requiring evidence to prove the accuracy of the watch data and finding that the victim was unusually convincing.
Justice See noted that the watch data contained the “raw heart rate data” of the man, the raw data of the man in relation to his state of sleep – whether it was deep, shallow or awake, and raw data of his step count.
“On the face of the watch data, the appellant was in light sleep from about 1.12am to 1.54am and deep sleep from 1.55am to 2.03am on Feb 28, 2021, and switched between light and deep sleep until 7.46am,” noted the judge.
Justice See said it was clear to him that the district judge had not erred “in any way” by not relying on the watch data, on the basis that no evidence had been tendered to show if it was accurate.
” First, while the parties agreed that the watch data could be admitted into evidence, the statement of agreed facts made it clear that there was nothing which could be said about the accuracy or significance of the Watch data,” said Justice See.
“Second, the appellant did not adduce any evidence to advance his claim that the Watch data was an accurate reflection of his state of sleep and could be relied on as a record of his activities between Feb 27, 2021 and Feb 28, 2021.”
He added that even if the watch data did accurately reflect the man’s activities during that period, “it did not go so far as to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case”.
“As the district judge found, even if the appellant’s case were taken at its highest that he was in deep sleep at 1.57am, the watch data, if at all, only showed that the victim was wrong about the exact timing of the offence,” said Justice See.
The watch data, coupled with the man’s own evidence, made it clear that there was a 1.5-hour window when he was in his daughter’s bedroom together with her and the victim from about 11.30pm on Feb 27, 2021 to 1.03am on Feb 28, 2021.
Justice See said the district judge had noted that even if the victim had provided an inaccurate time, the watch data did not go so far as to show that the incident could not have taken place at all.
“Rather, the watch data broadly cohered with the undisputed evidence that the appellant was in the bedroom together (with his daughter) and the victim as they used the mobile phones to design outfits,” he said.
Justice See found that the district judge had been correct to find that the victim was unusually convincing, and that the prosecution had proven its case.
He dismissed the appeal.
