An unnamed 22-year-old Singaporean studying in a “top university in the United Kingdom” is facing 20 charges of filming at least 12 women in toilets on various occasions, but when he was first charged in October 2019, he was allowed to leave the country to continue school.

He was first charged on Oct. 2 last year with two of the cases, for insulting the victims’ modesty.

Why was he allowed to travel?

The accused applied for permission that same day to leave the country to continue his studies at a top university in the United Kingdom (UK).

It was reported that his defence lawyer, Kalidass Murugaiyan, had told the court that his client is an undergraduate and needed to return to the UK to resume his studies, and move into his residence in the UK.

In applying for permission, Kalidass told the court that his client was not a flight risk, explaining that he has his roots in Singapore.

The accused also had no criminal record prior to this and was cooperative with the authorities, his lawyer said.

New evidence

New evidence surfaced on Tuesday in the case, however, when prosecutors appealed against a district judge's decision to allow him to leave Singapore a second time for his new academic term.

Initially, CNA reported that there were 11 women identified as victims, but on January 10, a 12th stepped forward with new evidence.

According to prosecutors’ submissions shared with Mothership, the evidence, they argued, shows that the accused harboured a serious intention to abscond, and was thus a high flight risk.

In his Telegram messages to one of his alleged victims dated Oct. 2, 2019, the man talked about a “master plan” to abscond by seeking asylum, in order to avoid “certain destruction” if he stays in Singapore.

The man said this to her: “I trust you enough to tell you this. I honestly might not come back.”

He also brought up the possibility of seeking asylum if he absconds, and weighed the “certain destruction” of staying in Singapore against the uncertainty of leaving the country.

“Stay for certain destruction, but there is that element of certainty. Or leave, and everything is uncertain, but potentially adverting [sic] this problem,” he wrote.

The man also signalled his intention to leave the country for good.

“Honestly, after the first mistake, there is little incentive in this world not to continue to try to lie or run,” he wrote. “But surrendering just means you die sooner.”

According to the state prosecutors, the text messages showed “concrete evidence” of the alleged voyeur’s predisposition towards absconding, and that the man had harboured the intention to abscond from as early as the day he was first charged.

Gag order and why it was given

Another aspect of the case is the issuing of a gag order.

Here's why the man was initially unidentified in his hearing on Oct. 2, 2019.

Back then, he was in court for filming two women in toilets on two separate occasions, and he wasn't identified at the time in order to protect the identity of the two victims.

One incident took place in a room at Orchard Hotel on Dec. 2, 2015, at about 1:30am, the other at a condominium in the east of Singapore on Dec. 23, 2016, at around 8:30pm.

When he returned in December, however, he was slapped with more than 10 additional charges, with nine more women listed as his victims.

Victims want gag order lifted

A reason for the gag order could be the location of where the man filmed the 12 women.

According to CNA, the man had lured many of the women to his home and "filmed with cameras he had secretly placed in his toilet".

Which might lead to a higher chance of identification since there would be fewer people who frequented his house then say a mall, market or hotel.

One of the alleged victims is 16 years old.

Prosecutors argued that there was public interest in the identity of the alleged voyeur, which outweighed the risk and likelihood of his alleged victims being identified.

They also added that the media could be guided on information that is safe to include and which should be excluded in their reports to ensure the victims’ identities are protected.

Prosecutors also reportedly said 10 of the 12 victims identified in the case so far have expressly requested that their alleged perpetrator be identified publicly.

As for the other two victims, the 16-year-old's family reportedly requested she not be consulted about this, and the other expressed reservations about identifying him.

According to CNA, after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and the defence for an hour and a half, District Judge Adam Nakhoda said he needed to consider the fresh evidence before him, and adjourned his decision.

The decision will be made today, Jan. 16.

Photo by Lazar Gugleta on Unsplash and Wikipedia