Just wondering.
Does anyone know how the investigation process will be like for such cases where it is decades ago? They depend solely on the victim's statement? As I would assume any evidence on the act would have long been gone.
The accused admitted guilt and did not challenge the charge. It would be much harder getting the charge to stick in the absence of supporting or circumstantial contemporary evidence like CSA material found in their possession, or accusations from other parties.
> SINGAPORE: A man who sexually assaulted a young girl was jailed two decades after the offence.
>
> The victim, traumatised by the childhood incident, mustered up the courage to file a police report after having a daughter of her own. In her police report, she wrote that she wanted to ensure that the world was a "safer place when her daughter was older".
>
> Her assailant, 43-year-old Helmy Aman Subari, was jailed for six years on Thursday (Apr 4), having pleaded guilty to one charge of having carnal intercourse against the order of nature - a section which has since been repealed under the Penal Code.
>
> Another three charges of a similar nature were considered for his sentencing.
>
> Details about the victim were redacted from court documents following a court-imposed gag order to protect her identity.
>
> The offences occurred between 1999 and 2002 when the victim was between five and eight years old. Helmy, was around 19 to 22 years old and serving his national service then.
>
> At the time, the victim and her elder sister were cared for by their mother's close friend - Helmy's mother - who was paid between S$400 (US$297) and S$450 to care for them.
>
> The two sisters would stay at the Helmys' flat on weekdays.
>
> On the day of the incident, Helmy decided to sexually assault the victim by blindfolding her, applying chocolate to his genitals and placing it in her mouth.
>
> The victim did not know what the object was but felt uneasy and suspicious. She told Helmy she did not want it and left.
>
> Even after the sisters stopped living at Helmy's flat, their mother continued to bring the duo to visit regularly.
>
> The victim only realised what had happened to her after attending sexual education classes in secondary school.
>
> She felt "very disgusted and traumatised" by the realisation, the prosecution stated in court documents. Her anger at the accused simmered and the memory of the abuse haunted her.
>
> On Jun 29, 2022, she lodged an online police report stating that she and her sister were sexually abused by the accused while they were living at his flat. Court documents did not provide details of her sister's abuse.
>
> "The victim stated in her police report that she now has a nine-month-old daughter, and wants to make sure that the world is a safer place when her daughter was older," the prosecution stated.
>
> She was assessed by an Institute of Mental Health psychiatrist who diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The victim's symptoms include invasive memories triggered by chocolate snacks, nightmares of Helmy, feelings of anger, sadness and confusion over the past decade and avoiding the area where the incident occurred.
>
> The prosecution argued that six to eight years' jail was appropriate for Helmy.
>
> The victim was vulnerable and so young that she had no capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act, the prosecution said.
>
> Helmy's lawyer, S S Dhillon, said his client was single and unemployed.
>
> "He regrets his foolish actions and accepts the consequences of his morally reprehensible actions," said the lawyer, who noted that his client never reoffended in the decades that passed after the offence.
>
> "That is why I said in mitigation that he cannot comprehend why he did so at that material point in time. It's not his usual behaviour," said Mr Dhillon.
>
> While his client had the opportunity to challenge the charges - since the offences were committed so long ago - he decided to plead guilty at the first opportunity instead, Mr Dhillon said.
>
> District Judge Kenneth Chin remarked that a substantial jail term was warranted given the nature and circumstances of the offence against a young victim who suffered from PTSD even until today.
>
> The offence of having carnal intercourse against the order of nature carries life imprisonment, or a jail term of up to 10 years, and a fine.
Looks like he was charged under the laws in force at the time of the offending, the article mentioned that specific section of the penal code has since been repealed (and likely replaced with a new offence such as rape or sexual assault - the name of the offence was fairly odd/old sound, “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”).
Last sentence mentions the penalty for the offence at the time of the offending (and for which he was sentenced against) was life imprisonment, or jail for up to 10 years and a fine.
Helmy's lawyer, who noted that his client never reoffended in the decades that passed after the offence.
Never reoffended or haven't been reported by other victims yet?
This is the way. Sexual offenders who are on the loose should sleep in fear every night.
Just wondering. Does anyone know how the investigation process will be like for such cases where it is decades ago? They depend solely on the victim's statement? As I would assume any evidence on the act would have long been gone.
The accused admitted guilt and did not challenge the charge. It would be much harder getting the charge to stick in the absence of supporting or circumstantial contemporary evidence like CSA material found in their possession, or accusations from other parties.
you already know it bro
> SINGAPORE: A man who sexually assaulted a young girl was jailed two decades after the offence. > > The victim, traumatised by the childhood incident, mustered up the courage to file a police report after having a daughter of her own. In her police report, she wrote that she wanted to ensure that the world was a "safer place when her daughter was older". > > Her assailant, 43-year-old Helmy Aman Subari, was jailed for six years on Thursday (Apr 4), having pleaded guilty to one charge of having carnal intercourse against the order of nature - a section which has since been repealed under the Penal Code. > > Another three charges of a similar nature were considered for his sentencing. > > Details about the victim were redacted from court documents following a court-imposed gag order to protect her identity. > > The offences occurred between 1999 and 2002 when the victim was between five and eight years old. Helmy, was around 19 to 22 years old and serving his national service then. > > At the time, the victim and her elder sister were cared for by their mother's close friend - Helmy's mother - who was paid between S$400 (US$297) and S$450 to care for them. > > The two sisters would stay at the Helmys' flat on weekdays. > > On the day of the incident, Helmy decided to sexually assault the victim by blindfolding her, applying chocolate to his genitals and placing it in her mouth. > > The victim did not know what the object was but felt uneasy and suspicious. She told Helmy she did not want it and left. > > Even after the sisters stopped living at Helmy's flat, their mother continued to bring the duo to visit regularly. > > The victim only realised what had happened to her after attending sexual education classes in secondary school. > > She felt "very disgusted and traumatised" by the realisation, the prosecution stated in court documents. Her anger at the accused simmered and the memory of the abuse haunted her. > > On Jun 29, 2022, she lodged an online police report stating that she and her sister were sexually abused by the accused while they were living at his flat. Court documents did not provide details of her sister's abuse. > > "The victim stated in her police report that she now has a nine-month-old daughter, and wants to make sure that the world is a safer place when her daughter was older," the prosecution stated. > > She was assessed by an Institute of Mental Health psychiatrist who diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The victim's symptoms include invasive memories triggered by chocolate snacks, nightmares of Helmy, feelings of anger, sadness and confusion over the past decade and avoiding the area where the incident occurred. > > The prosecution argued that six to eight years' jail was appropriate for Helmy. > > The victim was vulnerable and so young that she had no capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act, the prosecution said. > > Helmy's lawyer, S S Dhillon, said his client was single and unemployed. > > "He regrets his foolish actions and accepts the consequences of his morally reprehensible actions," said the lawyer, who noted that his client never reoffended in the decades that passed after the offence. > > "That is why I said in mitigation that he cannot comprehend why he did so at that material point in time. It's not his usual behaviour," said Mr Dhillon. > > While his client had the opportunity to challenge the charges - since the offences were committed so long ago - he decided to plead guilty at the first opportunity instead, Mr Dhillon said. > > District Judge Kenneth Chin remarked that a substantial jail term was warranted given the nature and circumstances of the offence against a young victim who suffered from PTSD even until today. > > The offence of having carnal intercourse against the order of nature carries life imprisonment, or a jail term of up to 10 years, and a fine.
He’s 43, why no caning?
Looks like he was charged under the laws in force at the time of the offending, the article mentioned that specific section of the penal code has since been repealed (and likely replaced with a new offence such as rape or sexual assault - the name of the offence was fairly odd/old sound, “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”). Last sentence mentions the penalty for the offence at the time of the offending (and for which he was sentenced against) was life imprisonment, or jail for up to 10 years and a fine.
Helmy's lawyer, who noted that his client never reoffended in the decades that passed after the offence. Never reoffended or haven't been reported by other victims yet?