Man gets jail, caning for sexually assaulting wife in first such case since marital rape immunity repealed
The judge said this appears to be the first case that considers a spousal relationship and whether it gives rise to the abuse or breach of trust in sexual offences.
Lydia Lam
22 Jul 2024 05:13PM (Updated: 22 Jul 2024 05:26PM
SINGAPORE: A 38-year-old man was sentenced to eight years' jail and six strokes of the cane for sexually assaulting his wife and obstructing justice in the first such case since marital immunity for rape was fully repealed in Singapore in January 2020.
The man cannot be named to protect the identity of the victim, who is still legally his wife.
He had claimed trial but was found guilty on Monday (Jul 22) of two charges of sexual assault by penetration and one count of obstructing justice by trying to get his wife to drop the claims.
The couple, who are the same age, got married in 2012, and have a son and daughter together.
The offences took place in July 2020 after a heated argument in their master bedroom, when the man sexually assaulted his wife twice despite interruptions by their children.
He had just been allowed to move back in after some conflicts, as his wife was persuaded following a family meeting with other relatives.
The victim reported the case to the police the day after the assault.
After the incident, the man called his mother-in-law and asked her to get his wife to withdraw the allegations.
If not, he said their children could end up in foster care and the case would be published in the papers. He added that there was a "strong possibility" he would be acquitted.
FIRST SUCH CASE INVOLVING SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIP
In sentencing, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said this appears to be the first case that considers a spousal relationship and whether it gives rise to the abuse or breach of trust in sexual offences.She cited past court judgments which illustrated various principles: For example, a woman who is raped by someone they know suffers greater harm than if they were raped by a stranger.
However, the court concluded in that case that the effect of any prior relationship between parties will depend on the circumstances of the case.
Therefore, a prior relationship can be treated as a neutral factor as a starting point, before becoming aggravating or mitigating depending on the circumstances of each case.
In this particular case, Justice Hoo said she agreed with the prosecution that the victim had placed some degree of trust in her husband.
For example, she allowed him to return to their matrimonial flat and stayed in the master bedroom alone with him despite the "strange" and tumultuous nature of their marriage at that time.
However, the judge said the abuse of trust was not of the highest severity or most egregious, compared with relationships between a parent and a child or a teacher and a student.
Justice Hoo said a power imbalance was "absent here", but clarified that it is not to say that power imbalances can never be present in spousal relationships.
Justice Hoo said the couple had "a pattern of using sex to resolve their marital issues", and that at the time of the offence, the wife was leaning more towards a divorce while the husband wanted to repair the marriage.
She said the man's actions were "atypical" and that she accepted the defence's case that the man had likely engaged in the offences in a "misguided attempt" to repair their relationship.
Even though the couple had been separated for several months at the time, they would meet and have sex, the judge noted.
She said that while the offender's conduct was reprehensible, she did not find that the abuse of his wife's trust particularly heightened his culpability.
The prosecution and the defence - Mr Vinit Chhabra, who was joined by Ms Gloria James Civetta on Monday - had argued on whether severe harm was caused to the victim.
Deputy Public Prosecutors Jonathan Tan and Selene Yap had argued that the victim had testified in court about the psychological and emotional harm she had suffered.
She said she was "afraid, violated and terrified" - not just during the assault but in the years since.
She said she continues to live in fear, that her whole life "is a mess" and that she fears her husband will attack her again.
Justice Hoo found that while it is undisputed that the wife suffered emotional harm, there was insufficient evidence to show that it was so severe that it would be an aggravating factor.
She also had no physical injuries.
Justice Hoo also disagreed with the prosecution that the offender's conduct during the trial was an aggravating factor.
She said his statements were relevant to his defence.
However, she found that the man had obtained a prepaid card and burner phone intending to avoid detection and with a degree of premeditation for the offence of obstructing justice.
She agreed, however, that it appeared the man made the calls in the hope of preserving his marriage and resolving the couple's issues, even though it was also to get his wife to drop the claims.
She further adjusted the sentence down after considering how the man evidently knows he has inflicted pain on his family, especially his children whom "he dearly loves" and has to be separated from.
Mr Chhabra said his client intends to file an appeal against both conviction and sentence.
He successfully asked for the court to stay the sentence in the meantime so he can have better access to his client, who is in remand, to prepare for the appeal.
Justice Hoo allowed the man some time to speak to his mother, who was present in court and appeared emotional at one point, after the hearing.
For sexual assault by penetration, he have could been jailed for up to 20 years and fined or caned.
For obstructing justice, he could have been jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.
Source: CNA/ll(sn)
