Married teacher in S’pore appeals jail sentence for affair with 11-year-old, claims ‘true love’

The defendant faced eight charges, including sexually assaulting a minor and contravening the Children and Young Persons Act.

Victim & defendant had sexual relationship before she turned 16

The victim said she started dating the defendant in Sept 2006. They began having sexual relations when she was under the age of 16 — the age of consent.

The two continued the affair until June 2017, when the victim’s sister exposed the situation after uncovering videos in the victim’s phone.

Source: aldomurillo on Canva. For illustrative purposes only.

The victim said in the videos that she was having trouble in the relationship and wanted to break up. She was also unable to confide in others for fear that the defendant would get into legal trouble.

When the case was brought to court, the defendant claimed that the victim played a “dominant” role in the relationship and that they were a couple. He also said that he did not coerce her into anything.

However, the judge responded that it was because he had abused his power as a teacher and that he should have protected and nurtured her as his student.

Source: Shin Min Daily News. Pic for illustrative purposes only.

The judge also pointed out the 21-year age difference between the defendant and the victim. This made the judge feel that the relationship was not love, but exploitation.

The defendant received a jail sentence of 14 years and two months after pleading not guilty.

He then appealed his sentence, saying that he was mentally ill when he gave his statement and had confessed under pressure.

Married teacher with underage affair  hospitalised 13 times during trial

The defendant’s trial was postponed multiple times as he was reportedly hospitalised 13 times. However, he was unable to produce medical certificates, SMDN said.

The prosecution stated that his absence was unreasonable and that the defendant’s wife also failed to fulfil her duty as his guarantor, and wanted the court to confiscate his bail amount of S$50,000.

The prosecution also said that if the court found no fault on the wife’s part, the defendant should pay the full bail himself.

However, the High Court judge found that the defendant was receiving treatment in hospital during his court absence and was not lying about his illness.