Public Prosecutor v CQW

CQW was tried in the High Court in Criminal Case No 48 of 2024 on eight charges of rape and sexual assault by penetration of his stepdaughter, alleged to have been committed in six incidents between March and September 2021, when she was 13 and 14 years old. He had moved into the one-room rental flat she shared with her mother at the end of 2017 or in 2018 and married her mother in early 2020; it was not disputed that he and the girl had a close and affectionate relationship. The incidents were alleged to have happened on the bed in the flat while her mother, a nurse, was at work.

In September 2021 the girl disclosed the abuse to a friend and then to her form teacher, and the matter was referred to the police and the Ministry of Social and Family Development. CQW was arrested on 24 September 2021 and has been in remand since. The Prosecution relied on the girl's testimony and on admissions CQW made in video-recorded interviews and cautioned statements. CQW denied any sexual contact, said she lied because he had confiscated her phone and the TV remote, and claimed midway through his own evidence that his admissions were false and made because an officer implied his stepdaughter was being held until he gave a story.

1. Whether CQW's video-recorded and cautioned statements were made voluntarily and were admissible.
2. Whether each charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt, including whether the uncorroborated evidence on the 6th Charge was unusually convincing.
3. Whether CQW's defences, including the alleged motive to lie, the delay in reporting and the interpreter's conduct, raised a reasonable doubt.
4. What sentence was appropriate under the Terence Ng and Pram Nair frameworks.

On voluntariness, applying Sulaiman bin Jumari v PP [2021] 1 SLR 557, the court found no threat, inducement or promise. The officer could not have known the specific acts CQW said he was asked about at that early stage, CQW showed no concern for his stepdaughter after supposedly confessing to protect her, and his allegations appeared only during his own evidence after his counsel had repeatedly said voluntariness was not disputed. The court drew an adverse inference that they were made up at trial.

The court found the girl an honest witness whose gaps in recall reflected distress and an avoidant coping style, and whose omissions to the examining doctors were explained by the limited purpose of their reports. For seven charges her account was corroborated by CQW's detailed admissions; he himself volunteered the act in the 8th Charge. The 6th Charge, a second incident in August 2021, had no corroboration and her recollection of it was not unusually convincing, so it was unsafe to convict, though this implied no dishonesty. Lack of consent was accepted and not challenged. Delay in reporting was explained by her wish to keep her family together, the motive alleged was illogical, the photographs only showed their closeness, and the interpreter merely clarified answers.

On sentence, four offence-specific aggravating factors were present: abuse of position, the victim's youth, offending over about seven months, and exposure to pregnancy and disease risk. The court rejected severe harm and significant opportunism as further factors and treated CQW's false accusations against the police as showing a lack of remorse. Each rape attracted 15 years and 12 strokes after a totality adjustment, with the 1st and 8th Charge terms running consecutively and caning capped at 24 strokes.

The court convicted CQW on seven charges, namely four of penile-vaginal rape, one of penile-oral rape, one of exploitative sexual assault by digital penetration and one of sexual assault by digital penetration, and acquitted him of the 6th Charge. He was sentenced to an aggregate of 25 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane, backdated to his arrest. CQW has appealed.