Former teacher convicted of sexual grooming and indecent acts with student

The offender claimed that he had exchanged only “virtual” or “verbal” hugs and kisses with the victim, and touched her with an instrument like a pen, pencil, ruler or paper.

The defence contended that the victim had fabricated the allegations because she was upset with the accused for paying attention to another student and wanted to retaliate against him.

The accused also claimed that he had “reluctantly” allowed the victim to call him “daddy” and that he called her “daughter” and other terms of endearment so as not to upset her.

He also claimed that he had complimented her appearance to “boost her confidence and self-esteem”.

JUDGE’S FINDINGS

Deputy Principal District Judge Ong Chin Rhu found that the victim was a credible witness who gave clear, consistent and compelling evidence.

Her evidence withstood the rigours of cross-examination and was supported by objective evidence, said the judge.

She cited multiple texts where the offender had stated that he had done certain acts such as holding the girl’s hand and face and touching her cheek.

An eyewitness also testified seeing the pair touch and caress each other on their forearms and during meetings to prepare for a school event.

The defence had asserted that the victim’s earlier lack of complaint and her conduct in voluntarily seeking out the teacher were incompatible with the prosecution’s case that she had been the victim of multiple instances of sexual exploitation.

The defence argued that it was illogical for the victim not to have called for help or sought assistance if the offender had performed indecent acts on her.

Judge Ong rejected this argument entirely, saying it was “entirely consonant” with the prosecution’s case that the girl was being groomed since she did not appreciate that she had been violated.

She found the offender’s evidence to be unreliable and peppered with afterthoughts “devised to distance himself” from the acts in the charges.

Several of his claims were raised for the first time in court and did not appear in the case filed for the defence, said the judge.

For example, his claim of using an instrument to touch the victim’s hand was raised for the first time not only was missing from the case filed for the defence but was in direct contradiction to a statement of agreed facts that the accused had earlier agreed to.

Likewise, the man’s claim that the pair merely exchanged air kisses and virtual or verbal hugs was never put to the victim nor anywhere to be found in the case filed for the defence.

The man’s insistence that he had never physically hugged or kissed the girl was also “flatly contradicted” by his own contemporaneous exchanges with her, said Judge Ong.

For example, in a series of texts the accused himself remarked that the victim kept “hugging me today” while the girl said he was the first person she had hugged where the hug lasted “so long and so tight”.

“The accused’s attempt in court to characterise these as references to virtual or verbal hugs defied logic and beggared belief,” said the judge.

In another exchange, the man counted four instances in which the girl had kissed him that day.

After giving further examples, Judge Ong said the man’s own evidence “pointed irresistibly” to a conclusion that his account had been tailored as the trial progressed.

“Beyond the question of credibility, the content of the accused’s messages shed considerable light on his true intentions towards the victim,” said the judge.

In one such message, the man invoked the saying that fathers and daughters were lovers in a past life and asked the girl whether she was still his love from a past life.

He also said she was his “favourite person” and that his wife, friends, parents and sister would have to “queue behind her”.

“These were not expressions of a teacher or a mentor to a student under his care,” said Judge Ong. “They pointed instead to a deliberate and calculated effort to cultivate a relationship of emotional intimacy with romantic undertones with a 14-year-old and were strongly indicative of a nefarious intent to groom her.”

She found that the prosecution had proven all charges against the man beyond reasonable doubt and found him guilty of all four charges.

The case was adjourned to June for mitigation and sentencing.

For committing an indecent act with a minor, the man could be jailed for up to five years, fined up to S$10,000, or both per charge.

For sexual grooming of a minor, he could be jailed for up to three years, fined, or both.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Education (MOE) previously told CNA that the man had been suspended in October 2023 and was no longer teaching in any school.

“MOE takes a serious view of staff misconduct and will not hesitate to take disciplinary action against those who fail to adhere to our standards of conduct and discipline, including dismissal from service,” said the spokesperson.