Teacher who molested pupil three times gets jail term reduced on appeal

A primary school teacher who was initially sentenced to 2½ years' jail for molesting his pupil on three occasions has had his jail term reduced by three months on appeal.

The incidents took place from 2016, when the girl was in Primary 5, until she was in Secondary 1 in another school in 2018.

On Aug 18, a High Court judge dismissed the man's appeal against his conviction, but allowed his appeal against the sentence for one of the incidents.

Justice Hoo Sheau Peng also dismissed the prosecution's appeal for three strokes of the cane to be imposed.

The 38-year-old man, who was the victim's form teacher when she was in Primary 4 and Primary 5, cannot be named owing to a gag order to protect the victim's identity.

She confided in him about her family problems, and he maintained his close relationship with her even when he was no longer her teacher.

Over the years, he used terms of endearment such as "baby" on her. He also bought gifts for her and initiated at least five outings where he went out alone with her.

On June 8, 2020, when she was in Secondary 3, she disclosed the sexual abuse to her form teacher, which led to a police report being made the next day.

The man has been suspended from duty since June 2020, and is no longer teaching in any school.

He was charged with three counts of outrage of modesty.

The first was for slapping her buttock in the classroom in 2016 while she was switching off the visualiser that had been used during the lesson.

The second was for hugging the victim and pressing himself against her body in 2017 when they were alone in the classroom. She said she had gone to school earlier than usual because he had arranged to meet her.

The third was for touching the victim's stomach in the cinema hall during a class outing in 2018.

The man contested the charges, but was found guilty of all three by a district court in September 2024. He was sentenced in November.

On July 14, the man, represented by lawyer Mark Yeo, appealed against his conviction and sentence.

On Aug 18, Justice Hoo rejected his argument that the prosecution's case was severely weakened because it failed to present objective evidence to corroborate the victim's testimony.

Regarding the first incident, the man contended that if he had carried out such an act, at least a few of the 39 pupils in the classroom would have witnessed it.

Justice Hoo said the fact that there were no witnesses did not undermine the victim's testimony.

She noted that the classroom was dark at the time, and that the pupils would have been busy packing their bags or talking to one another as it was the last lesson of the day.

Given the brief nature of the act, it was entirely possible for the man to have committed the offence undetected, she added.

The man also took issue with the victim for failing to mention the pre-arranged meeting in her statements to the police.

Justice Hoo said the omission did not undermine the reliability of her testimony.

The judge noted that hours before giving her first police statement, the girl had mentioned the pre-arranged meeting during a counselling session.

On the third charge, the man also argued that it was impossible for him to have had skin contact with the girl in the cinema hall. He relied on a photo that was taken before the movie to show that her shirt was tucked in.

Justice Hoo noted that the girl had explained that she later untucked her shirt.

After considering cases cited by the defence, the judge reduced the two-year term imposed for the second charge for pressing himself against the girl to 21 months.

She said the district judge had given too much weight to the fact that the man had claimed trial to his offences.

In declining to impose caning for the second charge, she noted that the offence did not occur over a sustained period and the intrusion did not involve skin-to-skin contact.

The Straits Times has contacted the Ministry of Education for the man's current employment status.