Apex court rejects jail, caning sought by prosecution for intellectually disabled teen rapist

SINGAPORE — A five-judge Court of Appeal on Wednesday (Sept 19) dismissed the prosecution’s appeal against an intellectually disabled teenage rapist’s sentence of reformative training. It ruled that prison and caning is unwarranted for an offender who lacks sufficient maturity and understanding to judge his own conduct.

The prosecution, led by Chief Prosecutor Kow Keng Siong, had argued for a prison term of between 15 and 18 years, as well as at least 15 strokes of the cane, for the now 17-year-old who has an IQ of 61.

He and his 16-year-old victim, who is also intellectually disabled, cannot be named because of a court order.

Last year, a High Court judge sentenced the accused to reformative training, which applies to offenders below 21 years old and lasts between 18 months and three years.

Justice Woo Bih Li imposed the sentence even after a prison psychiatrist said that there was a 75 to 80 per cent chance the accused would not benefit from the regime, which requires "a certain level of cognitive functioning".

Justice Woo questioned then if society would be better protected should the teen be imprisoned for 18 years, as proposed by the prosecution. Rehabilitation was more crucial, and would present a “practical longer-term solution”, he added.

The judge also lamented the "severely limited" sentencing options available for intellectually disabled offenders who are not of unsound mind, saying it was not satisfactory.

THE PROSECUTION’S ARGUMENT

In their appeal, the prosecutors argued that reformative training would not effectively address the teen’s risk of re-offending, a point the experts unanimously supported. The teen had stated that he continues to think of sexual images daily.

Their argument was that the programmes in reformative training were cognitive-based and group-based, to which the teen would not be able to respond.

While reformative training could be suitable for other offenders with mild intellectual disability, the prosecution noted that it was not for the teen, based on his culpability and the assessment of the experts and the Singapore Prison Service.

Imprisonment would be more suitable, as there was expert evidence that there are rehabilitative programmes in prison which include sexuality treatment and counselling.

THE APEX COURT’S DECISION

Delivering the apex court’s oral judgment on Wednesday, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon agreed with the teen’s defence team — led by Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan — that his intellectual disability mitigated his culpability for his offences.

The five judges — which included Judges of Appeal Judith Prakash, Andrew Phang and Tay Yong Kwang, as well as Senior Judge Chao Hick Tin — could not accept the prosecution’s approach that caning and a long prison sentence would be appropriate under these circumstances.

When presented with two “sub-optimal options”, the apex court said that it chose the “least bad” option for the teen, whose intellectual disability meant that his mental age was only that of an eight- to 10-year-old.

Should young offenders with intellectual disability be denied reformative training “if it seems that they have a particular need for it”, great injustice would be served, Chief Justice Menon added.

The court will provide its full grounds of decision at a later date.

THE CASE

The teen was 14 when he committed the crimes in November 2014. He was studying at Assumption Pathway School in Upper Bukit Timah, which offers a special curriculum for students who cannot get into mainstream schools.

The victim, a 16-year-old girl, is also intellectually disabled and from the same school.

While out in Bukit Panjang on Nov 21, 2014, the boy spotted his victim at a traffic light junction, tailed her to a housing block where she lived, followed her as she was reaching her home, and sexually assaulted and raped her along a corridor.

He pleaded guilty to aggravated rape and two charges of sexual assault by penetration. Six other charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.

He has been in remand since November 2014, and has been in the Boys’ Home for the past three years and 10 months.