Court dismisses appeal for shorter jail term by man who sexually abused 4 daughters over 14 years

SINGAPORE: The Court of Attractiveness on Friday (Sep 9) dismissed an appeal against word by a man who have sexually abused four of his daughters over 14 many years.

The particular 45-year-old man, who else cannot be named because of gag orders safeguarding his daughters’ details, was sentenced to thirty-three years and two months’ jail within March . He was also given the maximum of 24 shots of the cane.

He had pleaded guilty in order to seven charges of aggravated rape, aggravated sex assault involving transmission, aggravated outrage of modesty and ill-treatment of a child. One more 26 charges had been considered in sentencing.

He raped or sexually assaulted four of his daughters between 2004 and 2018, plus starved them more than five days within 2018 when he or she was angry with them.

At their sentencing, the assess called his abuse “horrific” and mentioned it was “one of the worst cases of rape and sex-related assault” he had seen.

On Friday, the man mounted their own appeal against the sentence, asking for the prison term to be decreased from 33 years and two months in order to 28 to thirty years’ jail instead.

Speaking via an interpreter in order to Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Judith Prakash plus Tay Yong Kwang, the man said: “I am pleading along with your honours if possible to lessen my current phrase. ”

“I wish to reiterate that I is a new offender and I am just not a repeat offender, as such I’m wondering to reduce my phrase, ” said the man. He added which he was not “asking to be released”.

Chief Justice Menon stated: “Well, he may state he is a first-time offender, but the offences took over a period starting 2004 and continuing until 2015 therefore for a long period, in fact it went all the way up to 2018, and there were 33 charges in all. ”

He or she said two number of the charges were sexual offences “committed against his own children”, so this case can not be seen as a first-time one-off mistake.

Rather, it is “sustained conduct continued over a lengthy period”, said the main Justice.

The particular appellant then started talking about how some evidence in his situation is “unclear”. He questioned why one of the victims refused several medical examination, and said it “would not be fair” for your court to give him such a punishment when the evidence was unclear.

“For example, if there is no apparent example with regard to the situation… the DNA from one clothes may be transferred to another person’s clothes, but that does not mean (it) comes from me your own honour, it could be another individual, ” said the person.

The Chief Justice said the man had been appealing against word and not conviction plus there was “no query about his guilt in this matter”.

“I’m not going to hear arguments about whether the evidence is clear or not clear because the certainty stands, ” stated Chief Justice Menon.

The man then gave another reason designed for his hope that will his jail phrase would be reduced.

“I hope that I will be able to do my mini pilgrimage. In the event that I’m released later on at the age of 65 or even above, I’m scared I’m not sufficiently strong to do my pilgrimage, ” he mentioned.

Chief Justice Menon said this “doesn’t make any difference” because the reduction he was asking for was about two years and he did not think there was clearly any relevance.

“We dismiss the appeal, ” this individual said. “There is not any error in the judge’s assessment. ”

The man had started sexually exploiting his children when their oldest daughter has been only six to seven years old, in support of his youngest girl was spared, the particular sentencing judge noted at the time.

He previously taken deliberate steps to separate one of his daughters by taking the girl to the family’s new flat that was still under construction and raping her generally there. He also sexually groomed her and tried to normalise the abuse by displaying her pornography when she was in Major 5.

The particular sentencing judge experienced noted that “nothing can restore the particular victims’ innocence or compensate for their suffering”.