A 22-year-old Singaporean man accused of filming at least 11 women over a period of three years, made an application to leave Singapore to attend a top British university.
On Jan. 10, 2019, the court gave the approval for the accused to leave the country to resume his studies in the United Kingdom (UK), despite the objection of prosecution.
The name of the accused cannot be revealed due to a gag order.
Accused allegedly violated modesty of 'at least 11 women'
According to court documents, the accused had secretly filmed and captured close-up images of 11 different women's private parts and faces.
He allegedly lured the victims to his home and filmed them using cameras which he had secretly planted in his toilet.
On Jan. 3, 2020, the accused claimed trial to all 20 of his charges, and appealed to leave the country to resume his studies in his university in the UK.
Prosecution objected to accused leaving
In response to the accused's appeal to leave Singapore, the prosecution objected, stating during a court hearing on Jan. 9 that he was a flight risk.
DPPs Foo Shi Hao and Tan Zhi Hao argued that the accused was incentivised to abscond, substantiating that he was aware of the strength of the evidence against him, and faces serious offences that carried a likelihood of imprisonment.
The prosecution also noted that the accused was likely capable of sustaining himself comfortably overseas "if he did abscond", considering that the accused's family was "of substantial means".
Prosecution argued that accused had not offered "sufficient reason" to leave country
The prosecution also highlighted on Jan. 9 that the accused only applied to the court to leave Singapore for one further term of study, even though he was expected to graduate only in June 2021.
They argued that his undergraduate education will be disrupted at some point regardless, be it the upcoming school term, or a subsequent one.
The accused had showed no attempt in making alternative arrangements, such as applying to his university for a temporary leave of absence, the prosecution noted.
As a result, “it is in the interests of all parties and the effective administration of justice that the case is resolved as fairly and quickly as possible,” they said.
Judge found no evidence that accused was a flight risk
After a one-day adjournment, the judge made the decision to allow the accused to leave, deeming that there was no evidence to prove that the accused was a flight risk.
The court noted that the prosecution's assertions that the accused had the incentive to abscond were not evidence-based, and that the accused had not absconded the first time the application was approved.
However, the judge added that the approval of the application was not a blanket approval for future appeals, and fixed the bail of S$20,000, on top of the bail amount from the first approved bail.
The prosecution stated that they will be filing a criminal motion to the High Court against the judge's decision.
They also applied for the judge to stay the leaving of jurisdiction until then.
This means that the accused is not allowed to leave the country until after the criminal motion is heard, which could be after his school term in UK starts.
Related stories:
Top image via Julia Yeo