A male primary school teacher was convicted of molesting a then 12-year-old girl who was a former student of his.

The girl was at the accused's home for a sleepover with his then-8-year-old daughter.

The perpetrator had worked as a primary school teacher for six years by the time of the offence and had no complaints made against him in that capacity.

He had also previously served as head teacher of a level in another school and was in charge of the well-being and safety of the students and teachers at that level.

The teacher was sentenced to 23 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane on Mar. 6, 2024, according to a judgment released on Apr. 8.

District Judge Lee Lit Cheng found the victim's testimony to be "unusually convincing" and "sufficient on its own to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt".

The details of those involved were masked for the sake of anonymity.

We will call the perpetrator "P" and the victim "K".

Close-knit relationship

P and K's family were expatriates.

Before coming to Singapore, P, P's wife and K's mother were colleagues in the same school.

P was K's teacher when the girl was just seven years old.

K's mother also taught P's children.

According to the judgment, the two families were "close" and had spent much time together since 2018.

In 2020, both families took up job offers at a school in Singapore, where the children from both families studied.

Both families also resided in the same condominium block.

The judgment even detailed how the families would help each other with childcare arrangements.

K's parents would even fetch P's children home from school on Mondays since P and his wife were caught up in staff meetings.

In his testimony, P said that he knew K "very, very well" and that "she was basically by this point part of the family".

Incident

On Feb. 27, 2021, the two families went out for dinner as they often did on Saturday evenings.

After dinner, K and P's 8-year-old daughter obtained permission from their parents for K to have a sleepover at P's home that night. The judgment noted that this was nothing new as K had gone over for sleepovers at P's house many times.

Once home at P's house, K went with P's daughter to her bedroom to play an online dress-up game called "Combyne". The two girls were having a friendly competition to see who could make more outfits.

The accused, P, was in the bedroom with them while they were playing the game. According to P's testimony, he went to the room to give the two girls their "bedtime water".

According to the judgment, the two girls were on the top of a bunk bed, "seated shoulder to shoulder with their backs propped up on the pillows and their feet pointing towards the wardrobe", with K on the outer side of the bed next to the guard rail.

P was standing beside the bunk bed with his "arms crossed and resting on the top of the upper bunk guard rail." The judgment states that he was "commenting on the outfits they put together and helping [P's daughter] to spell words she wanted to use to describe her outfits."

K then testified that P's hand went under the "duvet covering her lower body" and "stroked her right inner thigh in a back-and-forth motion". Then, P "rubbed her vaginal area skin-on-skin in a circular motion". 

The touching went on for "what felt like an hour" according to K, though she was "unable to tell exactly how long it was".

K was "shocked and just continued making outfits on" the game. She testified that she "knew it was wrong" since she was a minor, and "did not consent to his touching".

She was "shocked" that P, a "family friend and her teacher whom she trusted, was doing that to her".

When asked why she did not raise an alarm, K said it was because she felt it "would be scarring for [P's daughter] as she was, like, eight at the time and that’s just depressing”.

Reported to the authorities

The following morning on Feb. 28, K had breakfast with P's children.

She then took the lift up to her own house to get her iPad and went back to P's house because P's children wanted to play "Minecraft" with her.

When asked why K went back to P's house after being molested the night before, K said "I'm honestly not sure. If it was now, I wouldn’t have done it. But I think I was just still in shock.”

Later in the day, K met a close friend, F, and told her that something had happened while she was at P's house. F asked if the police could get involved, to which K said "yes".

In the evening, K told her mother what happened. K said her mother's "heart dropped" when she found out.

K's mother later, under cross-examination, had difficulties fully recalling the conversation she had with her daughter on Feb. 28.

K's mother said: "Everything from that night is pretty grey and pretty cloudy in my mind. I don’t know if that’s because of me who’s remembering things or me just not wanting to remember. I’m sorry.”

After consulting with the school, K's mother and K lodged a police report on Mar. 5.

Post-traumatic stress disorder

K's mother said that K's behaviour had "changed" in the months after the incident and needed professional help.

Cai Yiming, a psychiatrist at the Institute of Mental Health, met with K on Sep. 29, 2021.

K told Cai what happened to her in full detail.

Cai then opined that K had post-traumatic stress disorder following the incident, though her condition had "improved" and she was "fit to testify".

Cai stated that K was "scared" and suffered from "trust issues" following what happened. K was "scared of seeing the accused" at the condominium block, did not sleep well, and was repeatedly revisited by memories of the incident.

Defence fails to raise reasonable doubt

The defence raised several issues to contest the case, including the "height of the bunk bed" which the defence claimed was too tall for P to have molested K under the duvet, his "low libido" due to taking medication for low mood and general anxiety disorder, as well as the supposed "inherent improbability" of P committing the offence in the presence of his daughter.

The judgment found these arguments to be lacking.

Firstly, it noted that the defence had failed to, based on the facts of the case, "raise reasonable doubt" as to whether P was tall enough to reach over the guard rail and molest K.

Secondly, P himself conceded that there was no evidence to suggest that a person with low libido could not or was less likely to commit molestation.

Thirdly, the judgment noted that P had initially touched K's thigh, and noticing that she did not raise any alarm, progressed to touching her vaginal area, feeling "assured that he would not be exposed". It also added that it was "unsurprising that an eight-year-old child engrossed in her game might not have noticed that her father’s hand had gone under the duvet."

P and his wife also imputed motives to K's allegations, including having fabricated the incident for "attention" and having "dreamed of the incident". The judgment found these to be bare assertions "without basis".

P and his wife also raised the possibility that K might have fabricated the incident for higher grades at school during the end Mar. 2021 grading period. P's wife noted that F, K's close friend, had her grades raised upwards due to a situation with F's father. P's wife further suggested that the allegation may have been K's way of sharing a "special bond" with F.

The judgment found this claim to be "speculative and baseless" as well.

The judgment went on to add that "the loss of the close friendship and enjoyable times she could share with the accused’s family" showed that K had "no reason to falsely implicate" P.

No archetypal victim response

The judgment found K's testimony to be "textured and candid", thereby possessing that "ring of truth" that made her an "unusually convincing witness".

The judgment addressed inconsistencies found in her testimony but concluded that there was "no reason to doubt the truthfulness" of K's claims.

Moreover, the judgment found no reason to doubt K's claims based on her behaviour after the incident, because there is no archetypal victim response in cases of sexual crimes.

It noted that victims of sexual crime "cannot be straight-jacketed in the expectation that they must act or react in a certain manner." It also noted that "one cannot expect a victim to always raise an alarm or know what to do to stop a sexual assault."

Sentencing

As of Feb. 28, 2021, under Section 354(2) of the Penal Code, an offence of outrage of modesty of a person below 14 years of age is "punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with a fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments."

When deciding on the sentencing, the judgment took into account the "prolonged skin-to-skin contact" during the offence, the abuse of trust reposed in him by the victim being a "trusted adult", and the emotional turmoil suffered by the victim after the incident.

P was therefore sentenced to 23 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.

P chose to appeal against both conviction and sentence. He also opted to commence serving the sentence from the date it was passed on Mar. 6.

Top photo from SG Courts