A 38-year-old man was sentenced to jail for sexually assaulting his 38-year-old wife.

On Jul. 22, the man was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and six strokes of the cane for sexually assaulting his wife and obstructing justice, CNA reported.

This is the first such case since marital immunity for rape was repealed in January 2020.

The man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the victim, was found guilty of two charges of sexual assault by penetration and one count of obstructing justice by trying to get the victim to drop the claims, and convicted earlier this year.

The pair are still legally married to each other.

Under the Criminal Law Reform Act, non-consensual sex will be treated as a crime even if the offender is married to the victim.

In a statement in 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law stated that there was a need for sexual relations to be based on mutual consent.

"This amendment ensures that all women are protected from sexual abuse," they said.

What happened

The man had moved out of their marital flat and had been staying with his sister due to marital conflict.

At the time of the assault, the woman had allowed him to stay over at their flat after a family meeting with other relatives.

On Jul. 13, 2020, the man was in the master bedroom with his wife and they began discussing their marriage.

This led to a heated argument.

The man suddenly pulled down his wife's clothes and sexually assaulted her.

He was interrupted when their son knocked on the door, but he continued to assault his wife.

He stopped after his wife fled to the toilet when their daughter knocked on the door.

During the trial, the man acknowledged that the sexual acts had taken place but argued that he thought his wife had consented.

He argued that he had gone on top of his wife during the argument as she gave him "a seductive look" and pouted.

He also claimed that she continued to look at him "seductively" even though she said "no" and seemed to "enjoy" what he was doing.

The wife testified that she had asked him to stop, and she twisted her legs tightly as she did not want to have sex with him at the time.

In messages the man exchanged with his sister after the incident, and in a video-recorded interview with the police, the man admitted knowing that his wife did not give her consent.

He also said he was "ashamed" of himself for having "no control".

The sister told the man that his actions would not "go in" as rape but maybe as "molest" despite the victim being his wife.

In a call with his mother-in-law, which she recorded, the man tried to get her to convince his wife to withdraw the allegations. This was what resulted in him being charged with obstructing justice.

The man told his mother-in-law that he would agree to a personal protection order from his wife if she withdrew the allegations of sexual assault.

He also stated that his lawyer told him his wife could withdraw the allegation.

He added that he would pay her fine if his wife withdrew the allegations and was charged over it.

The man told his mother-in-law that if his wife did not withdraw the allegations, their children could end up in foster care, and the case would be published in papers.

He then said there was a "strong possibility" that he would be acquitted.

First such case

During the sentencing, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said that this appears to be the first case that considers a spousal relationship and whether it gives rise to abuse or breach of trust in sexual offences.

CNA reported that Hoo agreed with the prosecution that the victim had placed some degree of trust in her husband, having allowed him to return to the flat and the master bedroom.

However, the judge stated that the abuse of trust was not of the highest severity compared to relationships between parents and children or teachers and students.

Hoo said a power imbalance was "absent" in this particular relationship, and said the couple had "a pattern of using sex to resolve their marital issues", CNA reported.

Hoo added that the man's actions were "atypical" and accepted his defence that he likely engaged in the offence in a "misguided attempt" to repair their marriage.

Hoo pointed out that even though the couple had been separated for several months at the time, they would still meet and have sex.

While the man's conduct was "reprehensible", Hoo did not find that the abuse of the wife's trust particularly heightened his culpability.

Hoo also heard the prosecution's arguments on whether the harm done to the wife was an aggravating factor.

Prosecutors highlighted that the wife had testified that she was "afraid, violated and terrified" during the assault and in the years since, and that she still lives in fear.

She said her whole life "is a mess" and that she fears her husband will attack her again.

Hoo said the emotional harm to the wife was undisputed, but said there was not enough evidence to show it was so severe as to be an aggravating factor for the offence.

The wife had no physical injuries.

Hoo found the man had obtained a prepaid card and burner phone intending to avoid detection and, with a degree of premeditation, to obstruct justice.

However, she agreed that "it appeared" the man had made calls in hopes of preserving his marriage and resolving the couple's issues, even though he also wanted the victim to drop the claims.

Hoo adjusted the sentence further after considering how the man knew he inflicted pain on his family, especially his children, whom "he dearly loves" and had to be separated from.

The man's defence lawyer said he intends to file an appeal against the conviction and sentence, CNA wrote.

Related stories

Top photo via Canva