Former CEO’s appeal against conviction for sexually assaulting 9-year-old boy dismissed

SINGAPORE — He was found guilty of sexually assaulting his son’s nine-year-old friend during a Halloween sleepover in 2015 and had appealed against his conviction and sentence of 14 years’ jail and the maximum 24 strokes of the cane.

On Wednesday (Aug 7), Singapore’s highest court dismissed the appeal by the former chief executive of a multinational company, after a three-judge panel unanimously agreed that the victim had no motive to lie about the incidents.

The 49-year-old foreign national and his victim cannot be named to protect the boy’s identity.

The former company chief had been convicted last year of two counts of sexual assault by penetration of a minor, and another count of aggravated molestation, in relation to the incidents in October 2015. 

The victim had stayed over at the man’s home after trick-or-treating with his friend — the man’s son — on Halloween.

Shortly after the boys had gone to bed, the man entered his son’s room and molested the victim, who was sleeping in the upper bunk, then left and returned to perform oral sex on the boy. His son was sleeping in the lower bunk at the time.

During the trial in the High Court, the boy testified that he had pretended to be asleep during the sexual assault. 

When it was over, he packed up his belongings and called his father, who was watching a rugby World Cup match at home. He told his father he was feeling unwell and asked to be picked up.

When the boy’s father arrived, the boy got in the car and told him what had happened. The father then confronted the man and his wife, before asking his son to repeat his allegations. 

During the confrontation, the boy hid in the back seat as he was scared.

APPEAL ARGUMENTS AND DECISION

On Wednesday, Judge of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang, who heard the appeal along with Judge of Appeal Steven Chong and Justice Woo Bih Li, pointed out that the boy’s “almost immediate” reaction was “particularly relevant” to their decision.

“His abrupt decision to go home at night was very telling… It was clear he was not scared because he told a terrible lie, but he was genuinely afraid after experiencing the terrible things the (man) had done to him in the bedroom,” Justice Tay said.

The judges also agreed that the boy had no reason to lie, echoing the High Court judge’s previous remarks upon conviction.

They noted that the boy had had “a good time” during Halloween, collected the most number of candies among his friends, and had got along well with the man’s son, frequently going on playdates and sleepovers with him.

“It has not been shown that at that young age, (the boy) was given to telling lies or having a wild imagination or sexual fantasies. That night, it was the end of two fun days for (him), the (man’s) son and his friends,” Justice Tay added.

In his arguments against his client’s conviction, the man’s lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, sought to prove that:

• The boy had a motive to make up the story.

• The boy’s evidence was unreliable and inconsistent.

• There was no collusion among the defence witnesses.

Mr Thuraisingam argued that the boy lied to placate his father, as he would have to forgo watching the rugby match to pick the boy up in the middle of the night.

The boy had also behaved normally while waiting for his father to arrive, and the lawyer said that something must have happened in the car to trigger a lie about the sexual assault.

On that point, Justice Chong said he found it “puzzling and troubling” that while the boy could have lied, the alleged falsehood was significant.

“He could have said I quarrelled with the son, but why come up with something so outrageous?” the judge questioned.

Mr Thuraisingam replied that the explanation was “not considered holistically with other bits of evidence”.

Nevertheless, the three judges dismissed the appeal while agreeing with the High Court judge that the victim’s evidence was credible.

“All the evidence points towards that he could not have been dreaming, or telling a blatant lie to seek attention. He had absolutely no motive to accuse his friend’s father of such acts,” Justice Tay said.

The judges also upheld the sentence, saying there was a “serious abuse of trust and friendship by a mature adult against an innocent young boy”.

After delivering their decision, they allowed the man to speak to his family members for a few minutes before he was taken away.

Separately, he still faces five charges of sexually abusing another eight-year-old boy in 2011. The case is pending before the courts.