23-7-2024 (SINGAPORE) A 38-year-old man was sentenced on Monday (Jul 22) to eight years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane for sexually assaulting his wife and obstructing justice. This case stands as the first of its kind since marital immunity for rape was fully repealed in the country in January 2020, signaling a new era of accountability and justice for victims of spousal sexual violence.
The identity of the offender cannot be disclosed to protect the victim, who remains legally married to him. The man, who had initially claimed trial, was found guilty on two charges of sexual assault by penetration and one count of obstructing justice by attempting to coerce his wife into dropping the allegations.
The couple, both aged 38, tied the knot in 2012 and have two children together, a son and a daughter. The offenses occurred in July 2020, following a heated argument in the couple’s master bedroom, where the man sexually assaulted his wife twice, undeterred by interruptions from their children.
The incident unfolded shortly after the man had been allowed to move back into their shared residence, a decision made by his wife following a family meeting involving other relatives, despite underlying conflicts within the relationship.
The traumatized victim promptly reported the assault to the police the day after the incident. In a subsequent attempt to obstruct justice, the offender called his mother-in-law and implored her to persuade his wife to withdraw the allegations, warning that failure to do so could result in their children being placed in foster care and the case being publicized in the media. He further claimed that there was a “strong possibility” he would be acquitted.
In delivering the sentence, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng acknowledged that this appears to be the first case that considers the impact of a spousal relationship on the abuse of trust in sexual offenses. Drawing upon past court judgments, Justice Hoo highlighted that a woman who is raped by someone they know often suffers greater harm than if they were raped by a stranger. However, the court concluded that the effect of any prior relationship between the parties would depend on the specific circumstances of each case.
Justice Hoo agreed with the prosecution’s assertion that the victim had placed some degree of trust in her husband, as evidenced by her decision to allow him to return to their matrimonial flat and her willingness to remain in the master bedroom alone with him, despite the tumultuous nature of their marriage at the time.
Nevertheless, the judge clarified that the abuse of trust in this case was not of the highest severity or most egregious, compared to relationships involving a power imbalance, such as those between a parent and a child or a teacher and a student.
The court acknowledged the absence of a power imbalance in this particular spousal relationship but emphasized that such imbalances can indeed exist in marital contexts.
Justice Hoo noted that the couple had a “pattern of using sex to resolve their marital issues,” and at the time of the offence, the wife was leaning towards divorce while the husband sought to repair the marriage. The judge characterized the man’s actions as “atypical” and accepted the defense’s argument that he had likely engaged in the offenses in a “misguided attempt” to salvage their relationship.
While the couple had been separated for several months prior to the incident, they would occasionally meet and engage in sexual activity, a factor that the judge took into consideration.
Ultimately, Justice Hoo determined that while the offender’s conduct was reprehensible, the abuse of his wife’s trust did not significantly heighten his culpability.
The sentencing process also involved a debate between the prosecution and defense regarding the severity of harm caused to the victim. Deputy Public Prosecutors Jonathan Tan and Selene Yap argued that the victim’s testimony in court, where she described feeling “afraid, violated, and terrified” – not just during the assault but in the years since – demonstrated the psychological and emotional harm she had endured.
The victim further expressed her ongoing fear, stating that her “whole life is a mess” and that she fears her husband will attack her again.
While acknowledging the emotional harm suffered by the wife, Justice Hoo found insufficient evidence to consider it an aggravating factor, as the victim sustained no physical injuries.
Justice Hoo also disagreed with the prosecution’s assertion that the offender’s conduct during the trial should be considered an aggravating factor, stating that his statements were relevant to his defense.
However, the judge found that the man had obtained a prepaid card and burner phone, indicating premeditation and an intent to avoid detection in the offense of obstructing justice.
Justice Hoo agreed that the man’s actions appeared to be motivated by a desire to preserve his marriage and resolve the couple’s issues, albeit through unlawful means.
In a compassionate gesture, the sentence was adjusted downward after considering the offender’s evident awareness of the pain he had inflicted on his family, particularly his children whom “he dearly loves” and from whom he must now be separated.
Mr Vinit Chhabra, the defense attorney joined by Ms Gloria James Civetta, announced his client’s intention to file an appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. He successfully requested a stay of the sentence to facilitate better access to his client, who is currently in remand, as they prepare for the appeal process.
After the hearing, Justice Hoo granted the offender time to speak with his emotional mother, who was present in court.
