\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE: A 41-year-old former teacher was convicted on Tuesday (Apr 28) of sexually grooming a teenage student and committing indecent acts against her.<\/p>\n
The man called the student “dear”, “precious” and “daughter” in texts produced as evidence, complimenting her on her appearance and telling her that he loved her.<\/p>\n
In convicting the ex-teacher, the court found that the victim was a credible witness whose account was supported by evidence such as texts.<\/p>\n
The accused’s evidence, on the other hand, was unreliable, unworthy of credit and “riddled with afterthoughts” and contradictions, the judge said.<\/p>\n
She also described some of his explanations as “incredible”, such as his claim that his references to kisses and hugs in texts he sent the victim were to “virtual” or “verbal” hugs and “air kisses”.<\/p>\n
The court imposed gag orders covering the identities of the victim, the accused and the name of their school.<\/p>\n
The man was convicted of three counts of committing an indecent act with a minor and one count of sexual grooming of a minor.<\/p>\n
The victim was the offender’s student in 2022 when she was between 13 and 14 and in Secondary 2.<\/p>\n
The then-teacher met the victim frequently in 2022 to help her with schoolwork, patting her head and touching her hand during these meetings.<\/p>\n
They also met frequently from September 2022 to January 2023 and texted often, sometimes into the night.<\/p>\n
It was undisputed that school personnel had warned the offender sometime in November 2022 about the victim calling him “daddy” and told him to keep a distance from her.<\/p>\n
It was also accepted that the then-teacher suggested moving their chats to vanishing mode on Instagram, which does not leave a text trail.<\/p>\n
The defence did not dispute that the offender had driven the victim to the upper level of a multi-storey car park in late November 2022, where they remained in the car for more than one-and-a-half hours.<\/p>\n
The girl testified that she had sat on the teacher’s lap in the back seat while he hugged and kissed her and stroked her thigh.<\/p>\n
The prosecution argued that the offender had embarked on a series of calculated grooming acts, establishing a pseudo father-daughter relationship with the victim as a foundation for his later commission of indecent acts against her.<\/p>\n
Defence lawyer Kalaithasan Karuppaya denied that his client had committed any of the acts in the charges.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
He also claimed that he had complimented her appearance to “boost her confidence and self-esteem”.<\/p>\n
Deputy Principal District Judge Ong Chin Rhu found that the victim was a credible witness who gave clear, consistent and compelling evidence.<\/p>\n
Her evidence withstood the rigours of cross-examination and was supported by objective evidence, said the judge.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
An eyewitness also testified seeing the pair touch and caress each other on their forearms and during meetings to prepare for a school event.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
She found the offender’s evidence to be unreliable and peppered with afterthoughts “devised to distance himself” from the acts in the charges.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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”.<\/p>\n
“The accused’s attempt in court to characterise these as references to virtual or verbal hugs defied logic and beggared belief,” said the judge.<\/p>\n
In another exchange, the man counted four instances in which the girl had kissed him that day.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
He also said she was his “favourite person” and that his wife, friends, parents and sister would have to “queue behind her”.<\/p>\n
“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.”<\/p>\n
She found that the prosecution had proven all charges against the man beyond reasonable doubt and found him guilty of all four charges.<\/p>\n
The case was adjourned to June for mitigation and sentencing.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
For sexual grooming of a minor, he could be jailed for up to three years, fined, or both.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n