SINGAPORE — With no sentencing precedents for the sex-for-grades case involving former National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor Tey Tsun Hang, the prosecution yesterday asked the judge to take reference from past cases where law enforcement personnel were bribed with money.

Calling for a deterrent sentence of a minimum 12 weeks’ jail, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Andre Jumabhoy noted that theses cases offered “limited” guidance given the nature of Tey’s offences.

Mr Jumabhoy said: “The accused has systematically abused the position of authority he held over his student to enrich himself, both materially and physically. In doing so, he was prepared to violate the sacred position of a teacher, undermine the reputation of the university, and call into question the integrity of the academic system.”

Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye adjourned the sentencing to Monday, adding that he needed to go through the submissions by the prosecution and defence “very thoroughly”.

In his submissions, Mr Jumabhoy asked for a sentence of between six and eight weeks’ jail for each of the six charges that Tey was convicted of on Tuesday, with two of the sentences to run consecutively. This works out to a minimum sentence of 12 to 16 weeks’ jail.

He said Tey’s conduct from the onset of the graft investigation and throughout the trial “demonstrates not only that he was prepared to lie, but to lie repeatedly; to cast aspersions on innocent persons; to feign illness so as to disrupt the proceedings; and to show not one iota of remorse”.

Mr Jumabhoy also cited aggravating factors such as the “vast amount of public interest coupled with public disquiet that a law professor at NUS was in a position to take advantage of a student under his charge … potentially undermining the reputation of our public education institutions”.

He said: “The key suggestion raised by the offence is that the grading system, while having safeguards in place, can potentially be circumvented and subverted if an ill-intentioned party involved in grading the students is determined to enter into illicit arrangements.”

In the mitigation plea, defence lawyer Peter Low pointed out that Tey did not alter any grades. Adding that a stiff fine would be sufficient punishment, he said: “The present case has not caused NUS any reputational damage with regard to its grading framework and its institutional integrity.”

But Mr Jumabhoy disagreed: “The accused was placed in a position where the accuracy and validity of the marks awarded depended on his professionalism and integrity — in both instances, the accused has been found sorely wanting.”

Mr Low had also argued that should the judge decide to send Tey behind bars, “the closing of the prison gates behind the defendant, regardless of the duration of imprisonment is more than sufficient punishment”.

Mr Jumabhoy noted that the “clang of the prison gates” principle could apply to a convicted person who previously held an important position or was of high standing in society. However, “persons who committed breaches of trust cannot seek to avail themselves of (the principle), because it would be perverse to give credit to these offenders”, he said.

Speaking to reporters later, Tey said he was “mentally prepared” for the sentencing and that he had prepared papers to appeal against conviction, which he will be filing once the judge passes his sentence.