SINGAPORE: A man accused of sexually assaulting a younger man who lay inebriated on the floor of his bedroom was convicted of his charges on Tuesday (Apr 18) after a High Court judge found him to be a “disingenuous witness”.
Singaporean Jeffrey Pe, 45, had in September last year claimed trial to three charges of sexually penetrating the victim, then aged 20, on Aug 9, 2017. The victim cannot be named due to a gag order protecting his identity.
As part of his defence, Pe had argued that before the sexual encounters, the victim had indicated he was exploring his sexuality and had shown romantic interest in him. Pe claimed that the acts in two of the charges were consensual while denying the act in the last charge.
VICTIM’S ACCOUNT UNUSUALLY CONVINCING
Delivering the verdict, Justice Mavis Chionh observed that in cases where the only witness is the victim, the victim’s evidence must be found to be “unusually convincing” or must be corroborated.
Having reviewed the evidence and submissions, the judge found that the victim in the present case was an “honest witness” whose evidence was unusually convincing.
“Not only was the complainant’s evidence unusually convincing, I am also satisfied that there was other evidence in this case which corroborated his account of the alleged offences.
“Not only did the complainant consistently deny the accused’s claims of a consensual sexual encounter, but he also consistently told numerous third parties – his friend, the police, and doctors at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) – that he had been sexually assaulted; and he made these complaints at the first reasonable opportunity – indeed, within a very short time of the alleged offences,” said Justice Chionh.
Referring to audio recordings of calls the victim had made to the police after the incident, the judge said: “I could hear for myself the state of emotional distress the complainant was in.”
During his examination by doctors, the victim had also provided an account that was consistent with his testimony during trial, the judge noted.
According to the prosecution, Pe met up with the victim on Aug 8, 2017. The two consumed alcoholic drinks before heading to Pe’s residence.
At the apartment, Pe made the victim an alcoholic drink. The victim fell asleep on the floor of Pe’s bedroom and awoke sometime later to find Pe sexually assaulting him.
ACCUSED IS DISINGENUOUS
In contrast, the judge rejected Pe’s argument that there were material inconsistencies in the victim’s account before and during the trial, as these only focused chiefly on differences in terminology and were immaterial to the victim’s credibility.
“I find (the accused) to be a disingenuous witness whose claims about the complainant’s alleged romantic interest in him and the complainant’s alleged expressions of interest in exploring his sexuality were not at all borne out by the objective evidence before me,” she added.
The accused attempted to suggest that the victim was flirtatious or seductive in his text messages, but there was nothing to show that the victim had been romantically interested in or sexually attracted to Pe, the judge said.
She also dismissed the accused’s suggestions that he was intimidated by police officers or that there were inaccuracies in his statement.
In fact, the accused had penned and signed beside the amendments on his statement, she noted.
“Having perused the accused’s Aug 10, 2017 statement, it was clear to me that there were telling differences between his narrative in the statement and his testimony in court, which strongly suggested to me that he was embellishing his testimony in court in an attempt to make his account of an allegedly consensual sexual interlude more convincing,” Justice Chionh said.
For example, in his statement, Pe stated tentatively that he thought the victim had been conscious during the sexual acts. In court however, Pe insisted that the victim was awake and conscious.
The judge said: “It is clear to me that having realised that there were portions of his statement which could be regarded as being unfavourable to his case or at least unclear, the accused decided at trial to jettison those portions of his statement and to offer what he hoped would be a more convincing narrative at trial.
“I rejected this belated attempt as being devoid of credibility and merit.”
Pe is expected to be sentenced on Jun 26. He is represented by lawyer Amarjit Singh.
For sexual assault by penetration, Pe faces a jail term of up to 20 years and a fine or caning.