Man sentenced to prison and caning for sexually abusing his wife – the first case of its kind since immunity for marital rape was lifted

SINGAPORE: A 38-year-old man has been sentenced to eight years in prison and six strokes of the cane for sexually abusing his wife and obstructing justice, the first such case since Singapore completely abolished spousal immunity for rape in January 2020.

To protect the identity of the victim, who is still legally his wife, the man’s name cannot be mentioned.

He had demanded a trial, but was found guilty on Monday (July 22) of two counts of sexual assault by penetration and one count of obstruction of justice for trying to persuade his wife to drop the charges.

The couple, who are the same age, married in 2012 and have a son and a daughter together.

The crimes occurred in July 2020 following a heated argument in the couple’s master bedroom, when the man sexually abused his wife twice, despite interruptions by their children.

After several conflicts, he had only recently been allowed to move back in after his wife was persuaded to do so following a family meeting with other relatives.

The victim reported the case to the police the day after the attack.

After the incident, the man called his mother-in-law and asked her to persuade his wife to retract the allegations.

Otherwise, he said, their children could end up in foster care and the case would be in the newspapers. He added that there was a “high probability” he would be acquitted.

FIRST SUCH CASE RELATING TO MARRIAGE

In delivering the verdict, Judge Hoo Sheau Peng said that this appears to be the first case to address the marital relationship and the question of whether it leads to abuse or breach of trust in sexual offences.

She cited past court rulings that clarified several principles: for example, a woman who is raped by someone she knows suffers greater harm than if she were raped by a stranger.

However, the Court concluded in this case that the effect of a pre-existing relationship between the parties depends on the circumstances of the individual case.

A previous relationship can therefore be treated as a neutral factor as a starting point before it becomes an aggravating or mitigating factor, depending on the circumstances of the individual case.

In this particular case, Judge Hoo said she agreed with the prosecution that the victim had a certain level of trust in her husband.

For example, she allowed him to return to their shared apartment and stayed with him alone in the master bedroom, even though their marriage was “strange” and turbulent at the time.

However, the judge said that the breach of trust was neither particularly serious nor particularly egregious compared to relationships between parent and child or between teacher and student.

Judge Hoo said an imbalance of power “does not exist here”, but clarified that this does not mean that an imbalance of power can never exist in marital relationships.

Judge Hoo said the couple had “habitually used sex to solve their marital problems” and that at the time of the offence the woman was leaning towards divorce while the man wanted to save the marriage.

She said the man’s behaviour was “out of character” and she accepted the defence’s argument that the man probably committed the offences in a “misguided attempt” to mend their relationship.

Although the couple had been living apart for several months at that point, they met and had sex, the judge found.

She said that while the perpetrator’s conduct was reprehensible, she did not believe that the abuse of his wife’s trust particularly increased his guilt.

The prosecution and the defence – Mr Vinit Chhabra, joined on Monday by Ms Gloria James Civetta – had argued over whether serious harm was caused to the victim.

Deputy Public Prosecutors Jonathan Tan and Selene Yap had argued that the victim had testified in court about the psychological and emotional harm she had suffered.

She said she was “scared, hurt and frightened” – not only during the attack, but also in the years that followed.

She said she continues to live in fear, her whole life is “a mess” and she is afraid her husband might attack her again.

Judge Hoo found that while it was undisputed that the wife had suffered emotional harm, there was insufficient evidence to show that the harm was serious enough to constitute an aggravating circumstance.

She also suffered no physical injuries.

Judge Hoo also disagreed with the prosecution’s argument that the offender’s conduct during the trial was an aggravating circumstance.

She said his statements were relevant to his defense.

However, she found that the man had obtained a prepaid card and a disposable cell phone to avoid detection and with a certain degree of intent in connection with the crime of obstruction of justice.

However, she agreed that the man appeared to have made the calls in the hope of saving his marriage and resolving the couple’s problems, although he also wanted to get his wife to drop the allegations.

She further adjusted the sentence after considering that the man obviously knows that he has caused pain to his family, especially his children, whom he “loves dearly” and from whom he must be separated.

Mr Chhabra said his client intends to appeal both the conviction and the sentence.

He successfully requested that the court stay the verdict in the meantime so that he could have better access to his client, who is in custody, and to prepare for the appeal.

Judge Hoo gave the man some time after the hearing to speak to his mother, who was present in the courtroom and appeared emotional at times.

For sexual assault through penetration, he could have faced a prison sentence of up to 20 years, a fine or caning.

For obstruction of justice, he could have faced a prison sentence of up to seven years, a fine, or both.