Closed-door hearings for victims in sexual abuse cases among changes proposed

SINGAPORE — Alleged victims of sexual and child abuse offences will be better shielded from the trauma of criminal proceedings, such as being allowed to testify behind closed doors, if proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code are passed.

Physical screens will be put up in the courtroom so they do not have to face their alleged tormentors in cases “where the court finds that their evidence will be affected by fear or distress”, said the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) on Monday (July 24). The screens will “shield the victim from the accused”, while allowing the defence lawyers, prosecutors and judges to observe the victim when he or she testifies.

Lawyers will also be barred from dredging up or posing questions about the victims’ sexual history and appearance.

If they still want to do so, they will have to apply to the court for permission, which will be granted only “if it would be manifestly unjust not to allow the question … or the evidence to be adduced”, said MinLaw.

The proposed changes come in the wake of recent cases where victims of sex crimes have had to face personal questions about their bodies and behaviour.

In August last year, lawyer Edmund Wong of SY Wong Law Chambers was rapped by a district judge and Law Minister K Shanmugam for his “scandalous” cross-examination of a female molest victim.

Among other things, Mr Wong sought to argue that women sporting low-cut tops with their breasts protruding made them more likely targets of molestation. He also asked the victim to stand so as to assess her “attractiveness”. Mr Wong’s conduct also resulted in the Attorney-General’s Chambers lodging a disciplinary complaint against him.

Just last week, Mr Pradeep Pillai from Shook Lin & Bok, who was representing convicted rapist Hossain Anowar, told the court that his client “never planned to carry out the rape”, but was “aroused by the victim’s attire”. This argument was shot down by the prosecution, who said it was not right to tender such a victim-blaming statement.

If passed, the amended laws will state expressly that the “general moral character or chastity of complainants shall be irrelevant”, and questions concerning this will generally not be permitted.

Publication of the complainant’s identity will also be prohibited from the time a report is lodged, and complainants will testify in closed-door hearings unless they wish to do so otherwise.

Presently, complainants have to apply for such “gag orders”, with closed-door hearings being made compulsory only for female victims aged 16 and below.

MinLaw said: “By protecting complainants from being identified from the point they lodge a police report, the Government aims to reduce the fear they may feel in reporting such offences. This increases the likelihood that the offenders will be brought to justice.”

The ministry also noted the possibility of a suspect or witnesses learning of the complainant’s identity in the process of assisting with police investigations.  The proposed amendment makes it clear that it will be an offence if such persons expose the complainant’s identity and the fact that he or she has reported a sexual or child abuse offence, “whether to humiliate or apply pressure on the complainant or for any other reason”.

Last year, Mr Shanmugam, who is also the Home Affairs Minister, had reiterated that an effective criminal justice system must not make it difficult for women to report crimes, or put them through unnecessary ordeals during investigations.
To this end, a one-stop centre to interview and provide medical examinations for victims of sex crime was launched in February.

Each year, the police see an average of 150 rape cases and between 1,200 and 1,300 cases of outrage of modesty, most of which reported 72 hours after the alleged assault.