Originally posted by niceguy_123:
That's the correct statement misty. Often, there is a chinese
proverbs which states "seh4 zi4 tou2 shang1 yi4 ba3 dao1" See below
for example (True Case):
2.The accused and the complainant had known one another for less
than three weeks, having met on x December xxxx at the Sole Luna
pub at Holland Village. The complainant who is known as ABC, was a
part-time waitress there. The accused was 23 years old and was a
Second Sergeant with the Singapore Armed Forces. He was smitten by
her and was courting her assiduously although she was not
interested in him. They had one uneventful date on xx
December.
3. On xx December the accused invited the complainant to a farewell
party at the Sole Luna for his friend Frankie. She accepted his
invitation and arrived there at about 10.10 pm. The accused and
some of his friends were there, but Frankie was at another pub, the
Sultan of Swing, at Central Mall. The accused and his friends went
to join F at the Sultan of Swing at about 11 pm while the
complainant remained at the Sole Luna. She was still there when the
accused returned from the Sultan of Swing at about midnight.
4. She had about six bourbon cokes and vodka limes and they had
their effect on her. She was resting her head on the bar counter,
crying. At around 2 am, the Sole Lunas closing time, the
complainants friends and colleagues were leaving the pub. The
complainant was assisted by the accused and his friends on her way
out of the pub. They got her into a car, but she got out, vomited
and declared that she did not want to be taken home. The accuseds
friends carried her into another car. They went through her hand
bag and found that she stayed at ABCxxx. They also telephoned her
home and informed her brother that they were sending her home.
However as the complainant maintained that she did not want to go
home, they took her to the accuseds home at Yxxg xn Road on his
suggestion.
5. The complainant was asleep on the way there. When they reached
the block where the accused stayed, she was carried to the void
deck where she rested for a while as she wanted to vomit. After
that she was carried to the lift, and when they reached the floor
the accused resided, they stopped once more because the complainant
wanted to vomit again.
The events in the apartment....
The Judge :
25. I did not accept the explanation. The accused was 23 years old.
He had obtained his N level certificate as well as a Certificate on
Office Skills from the Institute of Technical Education and was
serving as a Second Sergeant in the Singapore Armed Forces. Having
observed him, and taking into account his background, I found that
it was not credible that he thought that consensual sex is sex with
oral consent, and that without it, it is rape however willing the
partner may be. In any event, he went beyond verbal consent in the
statement, and confirmed that there was also no consent by
conduct.
27. When I considered the complainants evidence, it was clear that
she had had too much to drink. She was unhappy and was crying, and
did not want to be sent home because she did not want her parents
to know she was drunk. She was vomiting intermittently and feeling
nauseated, and even after arriving at the accuseds apartment she
had to get up from the bed to go to the toilet to vomit again
returning to the bed to sleep. When her sleep was interrupted by
her pager, she went back to sleep after accessing her voice
mail.
28. The complainant could not be in an amorous state in that
condition. Her evidence that she had not consented to have sex with
the accused was confirmed by the accused himself. Her calls to her
friends recounting the events corroborated her evidence.
Sentence
35. In the commission of the offences, there was no violence,
threat of violence, abduction or wrongful confinement. There was
also no preconceived plot by the accused. He could not have known
that the complainant would be drunk, or that she would not want to
be sent back to her own home. The offences were committed because
of his impulse to have sex with the complainant when the
opportunity presented itself. The accused has no antecedents and
there is no real likelihood that he would repeat the offence. On
the other side of the scale, he denied the charges and went through
a trial of seven days. Keeping in mind the principles set down in
Chia Kim Heng Frederick v PP [1992] 1 SLR 361, I sentenced the
accused to [b]eight years imprisonment and six
strokes of the cane on the first charge and eight years
imprisonment on the second charge, with the
custodial sentences to run concurrently in view of the proximity in
time and other circumstances of the two offences.
[/b]
Perfectly correct decision. The accused even admitted that there
was no consent. In such cases, the evidence clearly points to
rape.
