Former swimming coach gets jail and caning for molesting 10-year-old student repeatedly

She pointed out parts in footage of the pool played in court to show where she thought Quek was molesting her. She was asked if she did not enjoy Quek’s classes and wanted to change coaches.

She agreed that she wanted to be with the other coach but denied that her motive for making the complaint was to change coaches. She said she would simply have told her parents she wanted to change coaches and that it was the touching that caused her to disclose the offences.

The victim’s younger sister also testified and said Quek had touched her while she was floating in the pool.

Quek’s fellow coach testified that coaches should only hold students’ hands or arms above the water level when demonstrating strokes, so that the contact remains visible to parents and other students.

He said unnecessary physical contact under the water should be avoided as it could give rise to complaints. He said he had never received any complaints about Quek in the 13 years he had known him or personally observed him behaving inappropriately towards a student.

Statements were given to the police by four other students in the class. Three of them observed how Quek tickled students during lessons, which they found unusual.

One of them said Quek would tickle him and his sister on the stomach after they finished their laps, and that they found this unusual because the other coach never did this.

QUEK’S CASE

Quek maintained that he had not touched the victim on any of the three occasions, saying it was “almost impossible” for him to do so given their height difference and how he held the victim’s hands to teach her a stroke.

He said he avoided touching the “main body” of his students when teaching them and said he had developed the skill and awareness as an experienced coach not to let his hands stray to a student’s private parts.

He said he would position his hand near a student’s back when they were about to enter the water from a sitting position as a precaution.

The prosecution showed him footage from the incidents, charging that he had touched the victim’s buttock in one clip.

He initially denied this but later conceded that he had made contact, explaining that he was rushing her to put on her goggles faster.

He also initially denied making contact with the victim in another clip but later conceded it, using the same explanation of getting her to put on her goggles quickly.

He acknowledged tickling his students, despite what he said earlier about avoiding touching the bodies of students.

Questioned about this, he claimed his students were mischievous and losing focus, and that tickling was a form of discipline to make them pay attention.

JUDGE’S FINDINGS

While Judge Tan noted that the footage did not show Quek actually molesting the victim, this was unsurprising since the alleged touching occurred underwater and only briefly.

However, he said the footage had considerable evidential value as it confirmed the physical setting described by the victim and it showed Quek making physical contact for which he had no credible coaching justification.

Judge Tan found the victim to be unusually convincing, with clear, consistent and compelling evidence. She also candidly testified that she did not want to accuse when she was not sure.

In contrast, Judge Tan found Quek’s evidence to be unconvincing and unreliable, with a repeated pattern of denying physical contact only to concede it when footage was replayed at half speed.

His claim that it was “almost impossible” to molest the victim due to their height difference was “equally unconvincing”, said the judge.

Quek’s response when first confronted with the allegations was also “telling”, said Judge Tan.

While the victim and her father testified that Quek stuttered and was incoherent, Quek said he told the victim’s father “no” in response to the accusations and was shocked.

Judge Tan said the attempt in court to characterise his response as a clear “no” was a further indicator of Quek’s unreliability.

He noted that when Quek’s fellow coach asked him about the allegations, Quek said “I don’t know”.

“A man who had just clearly denied the allegation to (the victim’s father) moments earlier would naturally have repeated that denial to his colleague,” said Judge Tan.

“He did not. The accused’s inability or unwillingness to do so went beyond what shock could explain and was more consistent with consciousness of guilt.”

Quek had no prior convictions. However, the judge said he showed no remorse throughout the proceedings and put the victim through the ordeal of testifying in court.

While he agreed that Quek’s health conditions, including heart disease and diabetes, are serious, he said they did not warrant a reduction in sentence or the exercise of judicial mercy.