Govt to relook penalties in underaged sex cases

SINGAPORE — The Government will be relooking penalties for crimes committed by the likes of convicted sexual predator Joshua Robinson, as the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) announced on Wednesday (March 8) that it will not appeal the four-year jail term imposed on the 39-year-old, saying the punishment was broadly in line with relevant past cases. 

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, told the media on Wednesday that the AGC has discretion over decisions on prosecution, sentences to ask for, and appeals, and these decisions should be respected. 

“If we don’t think the sentences, based on precedents, are adequate, then we consider what can be done,” said Mr Shanmugam, who is on a working visit in Australia. “I do think that the sentences for such offences committed by Robinson need to be relooked at. That is why I have asked my ministries to study this.”

Robinson’s case had attracted intense public debate since the American was sentenced last Thursday for 29 offences, including sexual penetration of two 15-year-olds. 

He had also showed an obscene film to a six-year-old girl, and was found with 5,902 obscene films, of which 321 video clips showed child pornography involving victims as young as two years old.

Nine of his charges were proceeded with, and the remaining were taken into consideration for sentencing. 

Noting the calls for a harsher sentence to be imposed, the AGC on Wednesday explained that based on the facts of the case, the public prosecutor could not have pressed for more serious charges — such as statutory rape or rape — against the mixed-martial arts instructor. 

Public criticism of the sentence for Robinson was also misplaced, since the charges against him did not provide for caning, as some had called for.

Mr Shanmugam said he understood the public unhappiness, noting that Robinson’s conduct was more serious than other types of cases involving sex with underaged girls. “I have asked my officials to consider what approaches are necessary for offenders like Robinson to be dealt with more severely through higher penalties,” he added. 

Under the Penal Code, the maximum penalty for having sex with a minor under 16 years of age is up to 10 years jail and a fine.

In its statement, the AGC said that the prosecution had indicated to the defence and the court that it would press for four to five years’ jail at a pre-trial conference in September last year. Robinson decided to plead guilty three months later, instead of claiming trial.

The AGC added: “In arriving at this sentencing position, the prosecution took into account, among other things, the fact that by securing a guilty plea, the three young victims would be spared the trauma of having to testify and be cross-examined in a trial.”

The AGC also addressed public misperceptions that Robinson had committed “sexual assault”, and that he should have been charged with rape or statutory rape, or outrage of modesty, or both.

The offence of sexual penetration of a minor under 16 was “the most serious charge that the prosecution could have brought on the facts of the case”.

Since statutory rape only applies to victims who have not turned 14, Robinson was not liable to such a charge. Neither could the offences of rape and outrage of modesty have been pressed against him, as both victims had consented to the sexual acts, the AGC said.

None of the offences Robinson was charged with gave the court the option to impose caning, it added.

The AGC also pointed out that it does not differentiate between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans in discharging their duties. 

It will be discussing with the Ministry of Law whether the relevant legislation should be reviewed, to enhance sentencing for some of the offences.