Four more charged with having paid sex with minor
SINGAPORE: Another four men have been charged
with having paid sex with a minor.
This brings to 48 the number of men charged for the same offence
so far; the others were charged on Monday.
In February, reports said 80 men were assisting police in the
online vice probe.
Former Singapore Environment Council executive director Howard
Shaw is accused of paying S$500 to the underage girl for sex in
October 2010 at Hotel 81 on Bencoolen Street.
Also facing one count is Chua Ren Cheng, a former teacher.
The 31-year-old had allegedly paid S$750 for sex with the minor
in December 2010.
The others charged are 40-year-old Swiss national Juerg Buergin,
a former UBS employee, and 49-year-old
businessman Edward Whistler Goh Ngian Meng.
Both are accused of paying S$450 to S$650 for the girl’s
services twice, sometime between September 2010 and November
2011.
Earlier this week, 44 men, including nine civil servants, were
charged in court with similar offences.
They allegedly procured the sexual services from an online vice
ring.
On Monday, several defence lawyers took issue with the charges
as they did not include the name and the date of birth of the girl
involved. The prosecution has now included such details in the
charges of the four men.
On Wednesday evening, the Attorney-General’s Chambers said it is
amending the charges against the 44 men, so as to include the name
of the girl involved.
However, the AGC will also be applying for
a gag order, to protect the identity of the girl.
The AGC said when the charges were first
tendered and accepted by the Court, the defence and the prosecution
shared the objective of minimising the risk of disclosing the
girl’s identity, whether inadvertently or otherwise.
This would be achieved if the girl’s name was not included in
the charges.
But some lawyers now said they prefer the previous practice of
naming the girl, but to impose a gag order at the same time.
Lawyers also felt the defence could be prejudiced if the girl
was not named in the charge, despite the fact that the accused
persons and their lawyer would have known who the girl was.
The AGC said although the prosecution does
not agree that this would be prejudicial to the defence, it (the
prosecution) has no objection to reverting to the previous practice
as long as the girl involved – who was underage at the time and is
still below 21 – is suitably protected.
- CNA/cc
=======
why is there a need to protect the girl’s identity?
is she not guilty of anything?
