SINGAPORE: A crime spotted two daughters aged eight and five playing in their level on Oct 17, 2022, and peeped in.
The older girl followed him outdoors and witnessed him indulge in an outrageous work because the 22-year-old sexual offender believed he was a mailman.
The eight-year-old girl then grabbed her hand and continued performing his vulgar act, fleeing only when the girl broke free when her sister was calling for her.
When the authorities searched Lim Kai Heng’s house, they discovered photos of young children wearing swimwear and adult pornography on his belongings.
Of the 306 films and 313 pictures, 11 movies and 125 images showed children in physical or offensive representations.
For outraging the girl’s humility and possessing child maltreatment materials, Lim was given a 30-month prison sentence and four cane-strength sentences.
In August of this year, he admitted guilt to the impulsive act of striking a passerby on the throat by dumping a plastic bowl filled with water from the second floor to the ground floor.
Principal District Judge Jill Tan argued in a judgment on Thursday ( Sep 26 ) that a key issue in this case was whether caning should be administered to an offender who ridiculed a child’s modesty despite not touching her privates.
Another important question was whether punishment was appropriate because some of the fabric contained” cruelty and physical abuse.”
” On the facts of this case, I answered these questions in the affirmative”, said Judge Tan.
Lim, who is now 24, had no previous convictions. He was assessed by the Institute of Mental Health to possess paedophilia, which was “ego-dystonic” for him. He therefore expressed concern about his sexual desire.
In her victim impact speech, the eight-year-old woman said she had trouble sleeping since the affair and generally cried herself to sleep.
She did awaken crying after having flashbacks about how Lim was acting on her. She has since experienced a fear of strange people and no longer trusts anyone other than her parents and her family.
The girl’s mom confirmed her flashbacks and trouble sleeping. She claimed that her child needed to go to counseling and that she has gotten quieter than she was.
SENTENCING Claims
The prosecutors requested six cane strikes and 33 to 36 months in prison, while Raphael Louis, the defense attorney, requested 10 months and three weeks in prison.
Mr. Louis argued that no punishment should be administered because his client “did not enter into the victim’s secret parts.”
He claimed that his client was “extremely guilty and remorseful” after seeking treatment for paedophilia after the crime, cooperated with studies, and was “extremely guilty and remorseful” about the crime.
The case’s outcome would have” a negative impact on his future career prospects,” the attorney claimed.
In her research, Judge Tan said that the emotional damage in terms of the victim’s lasting injury may be understated.
The accused’s attorney claimed there was no scientific evidence to support the accused’s claim.
” However, based on her victim effect speech and that of her mother’s, this event evidently scarred her,” said the judge.
She also inquired to her mother as to why God had chosen her to commit such a crime, a question a child should never be asked.
The victim’s family had the foresight to shape the event in a favorable light and explain it to the baby in terms of her position in catching the criminal, which perspective it can only hope the victim will eventually come to understand.
Judge Tan alleged that Lim’s insulting behavior had escalated, demonstrating that he did present a risk to the safety of any young people he might encounter.
” In the situation, my watch was that this situation was an ideal one to implement caning in addition to the prison term, as a deterrent”, she added.
” However, since he was a first offender in this regard, my view was that two strokes ( for the outrage of modesty charge ), instead of the three sought by the prosecution, would be sufficient”.
She also agreed that punishment should be used in the child abuse videos because two of the videos featured” cruelty and real misuse.”
Some of the children’s faces can be seen in the video and photographs, and the youngest child who was depicted in the child abuse substance was four.
Although the sentence would undoubtedly have an impact on the accused’s future prospects, the judge argued that this was a necessary outcome of his punishment for his actions and could n’t be said to be depressing.