Eugene Thuraisingam LLP x Founders Doc | Courtroom Secrets on Sexual Assaults

Dwindling flames around the conversations of rape and consent have been re-fuelled by the recent famous case of Dominique Pelicot, who savagely orchestrated a mass rape against his own wife. On the topic of managing such sexual assault cases, our Suang Wijaya, criminal lawyer from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, and Rachel Wong, corporate lawyer from Founders Doc, have thrown in their two cents in yet another anticipated video collaboration.

You may watch the video below or head to the Founders Doc YouTube channel here to view other videos on other legal topics.

The Moral conflict in helping the accused

Having his fair share of experience in representing accused persons in sexual assault cases, one of which was of a similar nature to the case of Dominique Pelicot, Suang admits to feeling initial disgust when encountering clients who have committed such offences. Nevertheless, the countless layers to every story will always provide for a deeper understanding of his client.

Contrary to the menacing individuals the public takes these perpetrators to be, Suang discovered that most of them to be just average human beings with worries about their circumstances.

Though, one might ask — your client tells you in private that they are indeed guilty of an act, what do you do?

Even if a client confesses their wrongdoing to their lawyer, there is no ethical obligation to declare such matters in court. Whatever is not authorised by the client to be raised in court is protected under the Attorney-Client Privileges and Confidentiality. Needless to say, a lawyer must not contradict the facts stated by the client. In the event of a confession, the best recourse is to mitigate and downplay any upcoming aggravating factors.

How do some accused persons get acquitted?

The 43-year-old Tan Yew Sin, an ex-Grab driver, was charged with counts of sexual assault by penetration, attempted rape and outrage of modesty against an intoxicated 19-year-old girl. All of said charges have been cleared after a 2-year long trial. Most feel enraged by the outcome, how was he acquitted?

Many factors are at play in these cases, Suang states the present undisputed facts. Medical experts have established that the alcohol potentially induces a loss of memory, but that does not extinguish the fact that one may still be conscious of their doings at that very moment. Moreover, the disinhibiting effects of alcohol may lead one to do out-of-the-ordinary actions. This and amongst others, the court concluded that the act cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be non-consensual.

Eye-boggling outcomes from these trials lead us to wonder – how do we know we are making the right decision?

Suang, like many others, understands the eerie connotation that our society may not be as safe as it sounds anymore, but he urges us to look beyond the surface of matters. In this case, much of the nitty gritty may point towards consent.

It is helpful to consider the following:

1. The complainant claimed that she did not want to appear too unwell to her friends, who had insisted on bringing her back home themselves – she had the capacity to form such a thought at that moment.
2. Audio recordings from the vehicle have depicted the complainant to have a higher degree of consciousness than claimed, and the sounds of moaning did not show much resistance.

The gist is that the judge needed to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant had not given consent. Much did not work in her favour.

Is there still hope for victims?

That being said, are we doomed to be in a society where justice no longer serves the wronged?

Suang assures us that there are ways to have one’s day in court  for such matters. In the Grab driver’s case, it is perhaps possible to steer towards the Terms and Conditions presented by the hiring platform. They may be spelt out more broadly compared to criminal legal pigeonholes (where various limbs have to be proven for a criminal offence to be made out). More pathways may then open, perhaps no longer for sexual assault but for a breach of terms etc.

Rachel graciously closed the conversation – “there’s much more than meets the eye”. With no excuse for the wrongdoings, there are still depths to every case to be looked at in order to decide the most just outcome for our clients.

It is important to note that this video is not to be taken as legal advice. For tailored legal advice on sexual assault cases, do contact us for a consultation.