Brother sexually abused sister for over 10 years from when she was 7 and he was 13, gets jail

She said there was a low risk of reoffending, citing “protective factors” including the love and support of his fiancee, who has “stood by him” through the proceedings.

He also has the support of his family, who, while they were “appalled and shocked” by the revelations, also asked the court to exercise some leniency towards him, said Ms Tanaya.

In the mitigation plea, the defence said the offender acted “out of sexual curiosity rather than predatory intent”.

Ms Tanaya said the proceedings have caused “irreparable damage” to the family and her client is “extremely remorseful” for this.

She said that, based on lengthy conversations on Telegram, her client had a “loving relationship” with the victim and loves her and cares for her.

He is “extremely remorseful for what has happened and how these acts have culminated and caused her pain”, added the lawyer.

She tendered a letter from her client’s parents, where they talked about being appalled but “heartened” by their son’s prompt admission of guilt as well as deep remorse and regret.

They also wrote about the offender’s “sincere seeking of forgiveness” from the family and the victim, as well as “from God”.

Referring to the incident between 2017 and 2018, Ms Tanaya said it was the victim who asked for the sexual activity, and that her client was “hesitant”, but the victim said she was not able to sleep.

In response, Deputy Public Prosecutor Sivakumar Ramasamy said the years of abuse were the reason the victim asked for the acts in the first place.

He disagreed with the characterisation of the offender’s “youthful folly”, pointing to the sustained nature of his conduct over a 10-year period.

JUDGE’S FINDINGS

In sentencing, Justice Mavis Chionh said the offender had abused the trust reposed in him as the victim’s older brother.

While not in the same position as a parent or grandparent, he was six years older than her, which is “by any measure a considerable age gap”, said Justice Chionh.

She said the offender enjoyed a close and affectionate relationship with the victim and agreed with the prosecution that this would add to the element of the abuse of trust, rather than detract from it.

As for the defence’s submission that the victim occasionally initiated the sexual acts, Justice Chionh made it clear that this “does not in any way mitigate the harm caused”.

The victim was under 12 years of age in most of the charges and the Court of Appeal has previously stated that any alleged consent by a victim below 14 in intercourse is not a mitigating factor.

She said the offender was already in his teens while his sister was a “mere child” and she did not even understand the nature of the acts as she was too young.

Justice Chionh noted the defence’s submission about the offender’s allegations regarding his experience with inappropriate sexual behaviour while he was in primary school.

She accepted that given his age and relative immaturity at the time of the offences, his culpability might be lower than offenders who were of adult age in other cases.

However, she cited another judgment which stated that  “the countervailing consideration is that serious offences must be met with a condign punishment in order to satisfy the needs for deterrence and retribution”.

She rejected any attempt to characterise the offences as “inappropriate forms of sexual play”, as opposed to grave sexual assault against a mere child.

Justice Chionh cited the victim impact statement where the victim said the experiences she was subjected to “completely altered her view of intimacy” and she did not think it would ever be normal.

She said it was reasonable to infer that at the time of the incest offence in 2017 to 2018, the sexual violations the victim had been subjected to in the formative years of her childhood had “taken a toll on her”.

She also accepted the prosecution’s submission that abuse of trust continued to be present in the latest incident.

While the offender claimed that this occasion was initiated by the victim, who had trouble sleeping, Justice Chionh said she did not find this to be a mitigating factor, or “anything for which the accused should be given some sort of credit”.

As for the alleged lack of gratification on his part, Justice Chionh said whether or not he enjoyed the act or found it satisfying was “irrelevant” to the court’s determination of his culpability and carries no mitigating value.

However, she noted his plea of guilt, the resources saved and how he spared his sister the trauma of testifying in court.

“This is in many ways a tragic case,” said the judge, adding that it had many weighty repercussions not just on the offender and victim, but on their family.

“I can only express the hope that the accused’s guilty plea and sentencing today will bring some sense of closure for all concerned and allow the victim in particular an opportunity to heal,” she said.

The offender sought almost two months’ deferment, saying he was currently staying in a rental apartment and needed to move out.

The judge said this was not a compelling reason for a deferment of such length.

The defence then added that the offender wished for such a deferment to spend the Christmas and New Year period with his family as he can finally speak to them since they are no longer prosecution witnesses.

The prosecution objected, saying the norm for deferment was one to two weeks and the reasons given did not warrant the deferment sought.

The judge granted only a two-week deferment. The offender remains out on bail of S$100,000, and his passport will remain with the investigation officer while he is on bail.