SINGAPORE: A man who was sentenced to five months' jail last year for stalking his ex-girlfriend after she broke up with him failed in his appeal to the High Court on Wednesday (Nov 17) and will begin his jail term immediately.
The 45-year-old man, who cannot be named due to a gag order protecting the victim's identity, spent more than an hour defending himself in court and taking issue with various parts of the statement of facts that he had earlier pleaded guilty to.
In coming up with his arguments to lower his jail term to three months, the man produced the 32-year-old victim's travel history. He pointed out how she had travelled overseas multiple times and was also able to go to work, despite saying that she was afraid to leave the house because of him.
The prosecutor pointed out that his line of argument demonstrated "a disturbing trend of him continuing to stalk her", "an utter lack of remorse", and was "akin to victim blaming".
The judge then told the appellant that he found it "troubling" that he was blaming everyone else, and making it seem like "all this is the result of what she did".
The appellant, a property agent, stalked the victim over eight months after she broke up with him in March 2018.
He set up a publicly accessible WeChat account in the victim's name, posted photographs of the victim with derogatory captions such as "she loves to sleep with married man" and "slut who sleeps around".
One of the photos was of both of them topless in bed, although it was cropped such that it did not show her breasts.
He also sent the victim messages threatening to make her disappear, get her sacked and "make (her) see blood" as revenge. One of his messages read: "I'll make sure you get sacked ... that's the sweetest revenge for your arrogance and stupidity... F*** you b****..."
He created three Instagram accounts impersonating the victim, sending follower requests to more than 600 users on the social media platform and putting up the victim's personal details.
He also posted the same topless photo on Instagram.
Even after the victim lodged a police report, the man continued to send her threatening messages and tried to reach out to her ex-boyfriend.
On Wednesday, the unrepresented man argued that the jail term of five months he was given was "excessive".
He said he felt "cheated" by the victim, and pointed out what he called were errors in her police statements, such as dates of certain incidents.
Pointing to the photo he posted on Instagram of himself and the victim in bed, he said it was not "topless" but only "compromising".
"Topless and compromising is two different meanings. Topless is sexual in nature, compromising is hinting at something that is wrongdoing," said the man.
He repeatedly said that he was not trained in law, and that he previously had lawyers with him but was now making submissions on his own regard.
The judge told him that "this has nothing to do with training" and that he could not backtrack on his admissions when he had already pleaded guilty in November last year.
"We had a serious relationship. I was very serious. Why would I want to harm her?" asked the appellant.
"I just want to have a conversation ... I don't want to live with regrets. She just run away. She close the door on me. ... When she closed the door on me, I finally realised. She don't want to have anything to do with me anymore."
He added: "I know where she stay. I know her number. But I did not physically stalk her, neither did I call her."
"If you did, that would have been another charge," responded Justice Vincent Hoong.
The prosecutor urged the judge to dismiss the man's appeal, saying that his belated attempt to detract from the statement of facts was without basis and merit.
"Up to today he still refuses to accept full responsibility for what he has done," said Deputy Public Prosecutor Eric Hu.
"He has blamed everyone but himself ... criticised the victim, alleges that the victim's account has discrepancies, ignoring the fact that he has been sentenced based on the statement of facts which he agrees to without qualifications."
He added that what was more troubling was how the man put together the victim's travel history from social media and included this in his submissions.
"If anything, this demonstrates a disturbing trend of him continuing to stalk her. He's now using this to substantiate that the victim is not as distraught as he thinks she is. This is akin to victim-blaming and this clearly demonstrates an utter lack of remorse," said Mr Hu.
The appellant objected strongly, saying he was remorseful and had "no criminal motive or intention" to harm the victim.
"You didn't harm her?" asked the judge. "You didn't harm her through all this?"
"I have no intention to harm her," replied the man, adding that he merely wanted a response from the woman.
"What I find troubling is that you blamed everyone. You blamed the prosecution, you blamed the victim. It seems like all this is the result of what she did," said the judge.
"Then why I admit? Why I plead guilty?" retorted the man.
"Exactly. You say all these things that seem to point to the fact that you don't think you are in the wrong," said Justice Hoong.
The judge reiterated a court decision where the principle of finality was set by the high court - where appeals cannot be used as a "back-door way to revisit" convictions unless there was a clear miscarriage of justice or exceptional reasons.
He dismissed the appeal and ordered the man to begin serving his jail term on Wednesday itself.
Continue reading...
The 45-year-old man, who cannot be named due to a gag order protecting the victim's identity, spent more than an hour defending himself in court and taking issue with various parts of the statement of facts that he had earlier pleaded guilty to.
In coming up with his arguments to lower his jail term to three months, the man produced the 32-year-old victim's travel history. He pointed out how she had travelled overseas multiple times and was also able to go to work, despite saying that she was afraid to leave the house because of him.
The prosecutor pointed out that his line of argument demonstrated "a disturbing trend of him continuing to stalk her", "an utter lack of remorse", and was "akin to victim blaming".
The judge then told the appellant that he found it "troubling" that he was blaming everyone else, and making it seem like "all this is the result of what she did".
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The appellant, a property agent, stalked the victim over eight months after she broke up with him in March 2018.
He set up a publicly accessible WeChat account in the victim's name, posted photographs of the victim with derogatory captions such as "she loves to sleep with married man" and "slut who sleeps around".
One of the photos was of both of them topless in bed, although it was cropped such that it did not show her breasts.
He also sent the victim messages threatening to make her disappear, get her sacked and "make (her) see blood" as revenge. One of his messages read: "I'll make sure you get sacked ... that's the sweetest revenge for your arrogance and stupidity... F*** you b****..."
He created three Instagram accounts impersonating the victim, sending follower requests to more than 600 users on the social media platform and putting up the victim's personal details.
He also posted the same topless photo on Instagram.
Even after the victim lodged a police report, the man continued to send her threatening messages and tried to reach out to her ex-boyfriend.
THE MAN'S ARGUMENTS
On Wednesday, the unrepresented man argued that the jail term of five months he was given was "excessive".
He said he felt "cheated" by the victim, and pointed out what he called were errors in her police statements, such as dates of certain incidents.
Pointing to the photo he posted on Instagram of himself and the victim in bed, he said it was not "topless" but only "compromising".
"Topless and compromising is two different meanings. Topless is sexual in nature, compromising is hinting at something that is wrongdoing," said the man.
He repeatedly said that he was not trained in law, and that he previously had lawyers with him but was now making submissions on his own regard.
The judge told him that "this has nothing to do with training" and that he could not backtrack on his admissions when he had already pleaded guilty in November last year.
"We had a serious relationship. I was very serious. Why would I want to harm her?" asked the appellant.
"I just want to have a conversation ... I don't want to live with regrets. She just run away. She close the door on me. ... When she closed the door on me, I finally realised. She don't want to have anything to do with me anymore."
He added: "I know where she stay. I know her number. But I did not physically stalk her, neither did I call her."
"If you did, that would have been another charge," responded Justice Vincent Hoong.
TROUBLING THAT YOU BLAME EVERYONE ELSE: JUDGE
The prosecutor urged the judge to dismiss the man's appeal, saying that his belated attempt to detract from the statement of facts was without basis and merit.
"Up to today he still refuses to accept full responsibility for what he has done," said Deputy Public Prosecutor Eric Hu.
"He has blamed everyone but himself ... criticised the victim, alleges that the victim's account has discrepancies, ignoring the fact that he has been sentenced based on the statement of facts which he agrees to without qualifications."
He added that what was more troubling was how the man put together the victim's travel history from social media and included this in his submissions.
"If anything, this demonstrates a disturbing trend of him continuing to stalk her. He's now using this to substantiate that the victim is not as distraught as he thinks she is. This is akin to victim-blaming and this clearly demonstrates an utter lack of remorse," said Mr Hu.
The appellant objected strongly, saying he was remorseful and had "no criminal motive or intention" to harm the victim.
"You didn't harm her?" asked the judge. "You didn't harm her through all this?"
"I have no intention to harm her," replied the man, adding that he merely wanted a response from the woman.
"What I find troubling is that you blamed everyone. You blamed the prosecution, you blamed the victim. It seems like all this is the result of what she did," said the judge.
"Then why I admit? Why I plead guilty?" retorted the man.
"Exactly. You say all these things that seem to point to the fact that you don't think you are in the wrong," said Justice Hoong.
The judge reiterated a court decision where the principle of finality was set by the high court - where appeals cannot be used as a "back-door way to revisit" convictions unless there was a clear miscarriage of justice or exceptional reasons.
He dismissed the appeal and ordered the man to begin serving his jail term on Wednesday itself.
Continue reading...