SINGAPORE — A defence lawyer who insinuated that a minor suffered no trauma from a sexual crime as she was in a sexual relationship with someone else at that time drew the ire of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon on Thursday (Aug 25)

The judge questioned the need to take a potshot at the victim’s morality, as he allowed the prosecution’s appeal against the sentence of two years’ probation imposed on 18-year-old Ong Jack Hong for the offence of sexual penetration of a minor. Ong, a full-time National Serviceman, was resentenced to reformative training.

Ong met the then-14-year-old victim — who cannot be named to protect her identity — in a pub at Golden Mile Complex in December 2014. She was drinking alone in the pub belonging to her boyfriend’s mother. After some time, she called her boyfriend because she was drunk and wanted him to send her home. But he did not respond.

Ong and his friends subsequently spotted her and chatted her up. When she went to the toilet outside the pub, Ong, then 17, approached her and started getting intimate with her. He carried her to a stairwell and had sex with her.

In his judgment grounds released in March, District Judge Mathew Joseph said he had imposed two years’ probation even though Ong had just completed a probation term — for mischief by fire — because of the purportedly consensual nature of the sexual penetration, among other factors.

On Thursday, CJ Menon said that, under the law, minors are deemed to be incapable of giving consent in sexual offences. “She was not only vulnerable by reason of her age, but in addition, she was drunk. She wanted to go home, but had not done so because the boyfriend she called had not come to fetch her,” he added.

Defence lawyer Cheryl Ng from law firm Amarick Gill LLC, who was acting pro bono, highlighted her client’s family woes. His parents are divorced, and his father, who has custody, has cancer.

Arguing that there were relatively few aggravating factors in this case, Ms Ng pointed out that the victim had a sexual relationship with her boyfriend, prior to the offence. “She has to be protected, but in this case, the victim has not suffered trauma,” she added.

The lawyer’s remarks prompted CJ Menon to interrupt the proceedings to seek clarifications. “It was not clear to me just what the point was that was being made by this reference ... In the final analysis, even if it was true that she had not been traumatised, that would not be a mitigating factor ... It was simply not clear to me why it was thought necessary to put forth a point that appeared to be directed at the morality of the victim?” he said. “That is seldom helpful in the context of sexual offences.”

The prosecution also disagreed with the district judge’s portrayal of the assault. “The victim lacked the capacity of a sober person to fully appreciate what was happening. The DJ’s mischaracterisation of the offence as consensual not only flies in the face of the admitted facts, it also poses a grievous injustice to the young victim by painting her as a lustful teenager who was a willing party to the act of sexual penetration,” said Deputy Public Prosecutor Charlene Tay Chia.

Probation was unsuitable for Ong, given the lack of “committed parental guidance”, she added, pointing to how Ong’s father had a “lax attitude”, shown in how he had blamed the victim for looking older than her age and for patronising a pub.

CJ Menon ruled that the district judge had erred in not calling for a reformative training suitability report prior to sentencing. For youthful offenders, reformative training — which lasts between 18 months and three years, and includes foot drills and vocational training and counselling — remains a rehabilitative option, he added.