Ex-SAF regular loses appeal against 7.5-year jail term, caning for molesting primary school girls
- Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee Mohamed Sanip, 42, was dismissed from his SAF job after molesting two girls
- He lodged appeals against his sentence and one of his convictions
- A High Court judge dismissed the appeals and ordered him to start serving his jail term next week
BY
LOUISA TANG
Published July 19, 2022Updated July 19, 2022
SINGAPORE — A High Court judge on Tuesday (July 19) rejected a former Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) regular’s appeal against his conviction and sentence for molesting two girls who were on their way home from primary school.
Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee Mohamed Sanip, who was married at the time of his offences from 2017 to 2018, was later diagnosed with paedophilia.
He was sentenced in October 2020 to seven-and-a-half years’ jail and six strokes of the cane.
On Tuesday, the 42-year-old Singaporean contested the sentence along with his conviction for one charge of using wrongful restraint to molest a minor under 14.
He also asked to retract his plea of guilt for another count of attempted aggravated molestation of a minor, and alleged that his former defence counsel was negligent in his legal representation.
Justice Vincent Hoong dismissed these contentions and accepted Ardlee’s request to begin serving his sentence next Monday. He remains out on a bail of S$30,000.
Ardlee has since been dismissed from SAF. He was wearing his military uniform when he targeted one of his victims, having been based in the Safti Military Institute on Upper Jurong Road at the time.
He grew interested in prepubescent girls in December 2017 after reading about paedophilic behaviour online, the court heard previously.
He then began researching topics such as primary school dismissal timings and “how to cover mouth sound”.
He followed an eight-year-old girl into a lift on Jan 22, 2018 and molested her.
A few months later, he waited for an 11-year-old student at a block of flats at Chua Chu Kang. He grabbed her, covered her mouth and pulled her towards a staircase landing. She managed to flee.
JUDGE'S FINDINGS
On Tuesday, Justice Hoong found insufficient grounds to overturn Ardlee’s conviction in relation to the first younger victim. He had claimed trial to this offence in the State Courts.
Justice Hoong rejected Ardlee’s assertions that the girl pointed to different parts of her body when asked where she was touched, that her mother gave inconsistent and untruthful evidence, and that the girl was coached as a witness.
The girl’s testimony that Ardlee had placed his hand under her skirt to molest her was “unshaken” during cross-examination by Ardlee’s lawyer, the judge said.
In contrast, Ardlee repeatedly changed his version of events, initially claiming that he did not touch the girl’s groin area before saying he possibly touched her under her skirt. When questioned by the prosecution, he eventually admitted to molesting her.
As for his sentence, Justice Hoong said that there was no merit in Ardlee’s contention that there was a causal link between his offences and mental illnesses — depression and stress-related anxiety.
The High Court judge added that the lower court judge was “amply justified” in finding that Ardlee planned the offences and was fully aware of what he was doing.
While Ardlee asked for a mandatory treatment order, Justice Hoong noted that the severity of his offences ruled out the community-based sentence.
In relation to Ardlee’s request to retract his plea of guilt in relation to the second older victim, the judge said that these requests will be granted only in exceptional cases, such as if accused persons did have the genuine freedom to plead guilty.
Ardlee did not meet this high threshold. The obvious inference was that he came to regret pleading guilty after being sentenced, Justice Hoong said.
In terms of his allegation that his former trial lawyer, Mr Mohamed Muzammil Mohamed, had acted negligently, Justice Hoong said that there was no evidence he pressured Ardlee to plead guilty.
In any case, this appeal was not the proper forum to determine if Mr Muzammil breached his duties, the judge added. He only considered if the lawyer’s conduct affected the propriety of Ardlee’s convictions.
Justice Hoong dismissed Ardlee’s contention that he was prejudiced by pleading guilty to his second charge.
Deputy Public Prosecutors Sruthi Boppana and Grace Teo had already argued that the allegations against Mr Muzammil were “no more than a misguided attempt to absolve himself of the consequences of the crimes that he has committed”.
For using wrongful restraint to molest a minor under 14, Ardlee could have been jailed at least three and up to 10 years, as well as caned.
