Public Prosecutor v GFE

• Judge: Toh Han Li
• Judgment Date: 16 January 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 8
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 8
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 21 January 2023
• Docket Number: DAC-915465-2021 & Ors, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9002-2023-01
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Yvonne Poon (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Tong Siu Hong Joshua and Ms Chloe Chen Wei (Kalco Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences- Incest,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Hearing Date: 07 December 2022,23 December 2022

Principal District Judge Toh Han Li: Introduction

The accused, a 60-year-old male Singapore citizen, pleaded guilty to two charges of incest under s 376G Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) with his biological daughter (referred to as “D”). One of the charges (“enhanced 4th charge”) carried an enhanced punishment under s74A(2) Penal Code as the accused knew that D was a vulnerable person. The proceeded charges were as follows:

1st charge (DAC 915465 of 2021) (“1st charge”)

are charged that you, sometime in March or April 2019, at [address redacted], Singapore, did penetrate with your penis the mouth of your daughter [D] who was then 24 years old, knowing that she was your daughter, and you thereby committed an offence of incest under section 376G(1)(b) and punishable under section 376G(3) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

4th charge (DAC 915468 of 2021) (“enhanced 4th charge”)

are charged that you, sometime in early April 2020, at [address redacted], Singapore, did penetrate with your penis the mouth of your daughter [D] who was then 25 years old, knowing that she was your daughter and a vulnerable person, and you thereby committed an offence of incest under section 376G(1)(a) and punishable under section 376G(3) read with section 74A(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

Two charges of incest (one of which carried enhanced punishment under s74A(2) Penal Code) were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing (“TIC charges”). The TIC charges were as follows:

2nd charge (DAC 915466 of 2021) (“2nd charge”)

are charged that you, sometime between May 2019 and September 2019, at [address redacted], Singapore, did penetrate with your penis the mouth of your daughter [D] who was then 24 to 25 years old, knowing that she was your daughter, and you thereby committed an offence of incest under section 376G(1)(b) and punishable under section 376G(3) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

3rd charge (DAC 915467 of 2021) (“enhanced 3rd charge”)

are charged that you, sometime in February 2020, at [address redacted], Singapore, did penetrate with your penis the mouth of your daughter [D] who was then 25 years old, knowing that she was your daughter and a vulnerable person, and you thereby committed an offence of incest under section 376G(1)(a) and punishable under section 376G(3) read with section 74A(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

All four charges involved D performing acts of fellatio on the accused.

Statement of Facts

D was a 28-year-old female [country redacted] national and permanent resident of Singapore. She was intellectually disabled and epileptic. At the time of the offences, D was a volunteer worker with MINDS, a voluntary welfare organisation which works with persons with intellectual disabilities.

Prior to his arrest, the accused was living together with his wife (D’s mother) and D at [address redacted], Singapore (“the Flat”). The accused was aged 57 to 58 years old and D was aged 24 to 25 years old at the time of the offences.

Background facts

D was born out of wedlock and grew up in [country redacted] in the care of her maternal grandmother. D’s natural parents married one another in 2002. D met the accused for the first time in around 2008, when she was about 14 years old. Between 2008 and 2014, D saw the accused about once every two years. D moved to Singapore to be with her parents in April or May 2014, when she was 19 years old.

Sometime around Chinese New Year in 2019, the accused showed his penis to D and told her to shake and massage it. He did this under the pretext of educating her sexually so that she would not get pregnant by other men. D did as the accused told her and masturbated his penis until he ejaculated.

Following that incident, the accused went on to receive acts of fellatio from D on at least four occasions. Most instances began with the accused scolding D for unrelated matters. For instance, because she accidentally broke the accused’s weight set while exercising, or because she brought home a used face mask that she had found outside. D then fellated the accused as a means of apologising to him and in the hopes of appeasing his anger.

The acts of fellatio typically occurred in the evening, when the accused’s wife was working. Her working hours at the time were about 3pm to 11pm. All the acts of fellatio occurred on a sofa in the living room of the Flat. The accused often told D not to tell anyone else about the sexual acts, including the victim’s mother.

Facts relating to the 1st charge (DAC-915465-2021)

Sometime in March or April 2019, D was chatting to the accused in the Flat and shared that she was physically attracted to members of a Korean boy band. In the course of this conversation, the accused grew sexually aroused and was tempted to engage in sexual acts with the victim.

The accused showed pornographic videos to D on his tablet and told her that this was how people engaged in sexual acts. Afterwards, the accused asked D to remove his pants. As she was too shy, he removed his pants himself. The accused then asked D to masturbate his penis by massaging it, and D reluctantly complied.

The accused was emboldened by the victim’s compliance and asked her to suck his penis. The accused said that he was teaching her so that she could get experience in sexual matters, and that if she serviced other men outside, they might harm her instead. D complied and fellated the accused until he ejaculated.

At the time of this offence, the accused was 57 years old and D was 24 years old.

Facts relating to the 4th charge (DAC-915468-2021)

The final incident of fellatio between the accused and D occurred in early April 2020. One morning, the accused and D were eating together in the Flat when D dipped her own spoon into a dish of food instead of using the serving spoon. The accused became furious and shouted at D about her lack of hygiene. Out of anger, he refused to talk to her. D felt very sad.

Later that day, D went up to the accused and said she was sorry. She sat down close to him on the sofa in their living room and looked at his groin. The accused inferred that she was offering to fellate him. The accused therefore pulled down his pants. D told the accused, “hey papa, I think you need to wash first, it’s quite smelly”.

The accused went to wash his groin and came back. D then fellated the accused until he ejaculated onto his stomach. Thereafter, the accused told D that she did a good job. He reminded her not to mention the incident to anyone else and to keep it a secret.

At the time of this offence, the accused was 57 years old and D was 25 years old.

Discovery of the offences

D disliked fellating her father and felt that he was asking her to do this more and more frequently. Sometime after the final incident of fellatio, D eventually confided in her training officer at MINDS that her father had been asking her to suck his penis.

On 6 April 2020 at 5.45pm, D, accompanied by a case worker from MINDS lodged a report at [location redacted] Neighbourhood Police Post, stating that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused.

After the matter came to the attention of the Police, D was brought to stay at a home for disabled persons, where she continues residing to date.

Neurological and psychiatric assessments for D

In 2008, at the age of 14, D was assessed by the National Neuroscience Institute. She was suspected to have subtle cortical dysplasia and polymicrogyria at part of her left frontal lobe.

In 2015, at the age of 20, D was seen at the NUS Clinical and Health Psychology Centre. According to a psychological report dated 13 March 2015, intellectual assessment on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) suggested that D was functioning in the extremely low range of intelligence. Her verbal comprehension index, working memory index and processing speed index were all in the extremely low range, while her perceptual reasoning index was in the borderline range. On the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales – Second Edition (Vineland-II), D’s overall level of adaptive functioning was found to be within the low range.

Following the discovery of the offences, D was assessed by Dr Nisha Chandwani (“Dr Chandwani”) at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) on 12 August 2020 and 11 November 2020. Dr Chandwani assessed D to be suffering from intellectual disability. Her current functioning was in keeping with that expected from her level of intellectual disability. In Dr Chandwani’s view, D’s intellectual disability did not impair her judgment at the time of the offences. She understood that her father’s action was not right, but she was unable to refuse his advances out of fear of incurring her parents’ anger and punishments.

Dr Chandwani issued a clarification report dated 13 April 2021 stating that: D was able to understand the nature and consequence of the sexual acts she performed on her father, notwithstanding her intellectual disability. The victim’s intellectual disability did not impair her ability to make a proper judgement in the giving of consent to sexual touching.

Dr Chandwani issued a further clarification report dated 5 Sep 2022 stating the following: D’s intellectual disability rendered her dependent on others. The condition could also result in a concrete approach to problems and solutions not in keeping with developmentally normal peers of the same age; D’s interaction with her biological parents has resulted in a pattern of learned behaviour of submitting to her parents out of a fear of punishment that was not in keeping with developmentally normal peers of the same age; D understood that her father’s actions were not right and was able to state to him that she weas not keen to participate in them. However, she struggled to protect herself from being subjected to these alleged acts...