Defence appeals rape conviction of ex-Wah!Banana actor, alleging woman fabricated evidence

When asked about this at trial, the woman said she could not recall this.

The Chief Justice said this was an inconsistency, but said he was puzzled as to how it was material to the charge. He asked what the defence’s supposition was as to what was behind this.

“The overall theory we have is that after the sexual intercourse with the accused on the night of Jan 12, she spent the time between Jan 12 and Jan 18 deciding how best to concoct a story of rape and how to fabricate evidence of that thing that never happened, and part of that process involved her going to see a doctor, asking for a memo saying she had injuries and that she had been raped, but when she hit a wall with that, she asked for the record of the visit to be erased,” said Mr Hadi.

According to the defence, Panfilov thinks the most plausible explanation for what changed after the purportedly consensual sex was that the woman felt “ghosted” or ignored by him.

CCTV FOOTAGE, MESSAGES

The defence questioned aspects of the woman’s account, including why she did not leave the apartment in the interval of about a minute when Panfilov left her fully clothed on the bed while he went to the bathroom to retrieve a condom.

The woman had said she had tried twice to leave earlier but was unable to do so.

The defence also pointed to closed-circuit television footage of the woman leaving Panfilov’s lift lobby.

“Not a hair was out of place,” said the lawyer, noting that the footage showed someone using her phone and not visibly distressed.

He initially did not push that point any further based on concerns of stereotyping how victims of sexual assault react, but the Chief Justice stepped in.

Lawyers are cautioned against making arguments that amount to victim-blaming or questioning why victims may react a certain way, given that trauma responses can vary widely.

However, Chief Justice Menon said this did not apply in this case.

Instead, he said, analysing the CCTV footage was a matter of considering physical evidence, which was relevant to the case.

The woman had said her hair was manhandled during the assault, but this did not appear to be the case in the footage.

Chief Justice Menon also said he was troubled by the pair’s exchange of text messages after the incident, as well as the fact that Panfilov appeared to be content for the woman to leave.

“I mean, if what had just happened was a violent rape, one would’ve thought there’d be concerns, if the person who had apparently tried twice to flee, whether that person would go to the police,” he said.

The woman’s evidence was that after she left Panfilov’s flat, he texted her asking how everything was and whether she had arrived home safely. She responded positively.

PROSECUTION QUESTIONED

Mounting the case for the prosecution were Mr Sheldon Lim and Mr Han Ming Kuang, who had taken over the case from a different set of prosecutors.

Mr Lim attempted several arguments about the victim’s consistency, but was interjected at various points by questions from the three judges.

On the discrepancy over whether the woman had screamed, Mr Lim said the woman’s evidence was that the doctor may have misunderstood what she said about the scream. But Chief Justice Menon said he preferred the evidence of the doctor, who had taken verbatim and contemporaneous notes.

When the prosecutor tried to say she could have misspoken because of tiredness or trauma, Chief Justice Menon said this was not the evidence the woman had given.

When Mr Han took over arguments and said the woman was consistent about being terrified by Panfilov, Chief Justice Menon said Panfilov had been equally consistent by and large in his account of events.

“So it doesn’t tell us very much, which is why we descend into the granularity,” he said.

The court also raised concerns about the defence’s cross-examination of the woman at trial over how she left the apartment. The court described the questioning on whether she walked out of the room as “quite painful” and “very, very arduous”.

She had been shown walking in CCTV footage.

“Because she was not willing to say that she walked, and then the counsel had to ask if she crawled, whether she moved, all of that … the judge himself describes that she was being cagey,” said the court.

Chief Justice Menon added that if the woman was not dishevelled after an assault as violent as she described, one would expect an explanation as to why, such as perhaps she had gone to freshen up.

However, if there was no explanation, then it was inconsistent, he said.

Explaining the underwear, Mr Lim said it was clear from the evidence that the woman had forgotten about her underwear until her mother reminded her to take it to the police station. 

To this, Chief Justice Menon said it was difficult to understand how the woman could forget about it when she had broken down and cried at the sight of the bloodied underwear.

On the interval of about a minute when Panfilov went to retrieve a condom, the prosecution argued that it was unreasonable to expect the woman to react within such a short period.

Chief Justice Menon disagreed, saying it was possible for her to leave during that time.

He said it did not stack up that a man who had sexually assaulted her violently would casually leave her there, go to the bathroom and retrieve the condom.

The Court of Appeal reserved judgment. A decision will be given at a later, unspecified date.

Panfilov was allowed some time to speak to his mother, girlfriend and a representative from an embassy.

The penalties for rape and sexual assault by penetration are up to 20 years’ jail, a fine, and caning.

Molestation is punishable by up to two years’ jail, a fine, caning, or any combination of these punishments.