Part-time beach patrol officer gets 11 years’ jail, 12 strokes for raping drunk party-goer
Pram Nair. Photo: Singapore Police Force
SINGAPORE — A part-time beach patrol officer who plied a 20-year-old partygoer with drinks then raped her was sentenced to 11 years and 19 days’ jail and 12 strokes of the cane.
While Pram Nair’s punishment was lighter than the 16 years’ jail and 12 strokes of the cane prosecutors had sought, Justice Woo Bih Li stressed that the rape of an intoxicated victim was not to be “treated lightly”, adding that the courts would treat such cases as more serious than rape cases where there are no aggravating or mitigating factors.
The prosecution team of Bhajanvir Singh, Kavita Uthrapathy and Kenneth Chin had urged Justice Woo to impose an “exemplary sentence, one that pierces false stereotypes and wrong assumptions about rapes and sexual assaults of intoxicated victims”.
“The sentence meted out ... must be a sentence that serves as a warning to all that it is not okay to assume that skimpily-clad drunk girls at a party are ‘asking for it’,” the prosecution added. “It is not okay to assume that an intoxicated girl is a promiscuous girl. And it is certainly not okay to assume that a lack of resistance means consent to sexual intercourse.”
Nair’s lawyer, on the other hand, argued that his client’s case was not severe enough to fall under Category 2 rape — such as where there are multiple offenders, or the offender is in a position of responsibility towards the victim.
The court was told that on May 5, 2012, the victim attended a beach party with a friend at Wave House Sentosa, a club and restaurant.
At the party, she drank shots of whisky, Cointreau liquor and juice with friends before Nair approached and chatted with them. They played a drinking game where Nair poured Cointreau from the bottle directly into her mouth for 20 seconds, as she had just turned 20.
Later, Nair, who was 23 then, took her a distance away and raped her. Eyewitnesses called the police after they saw the victim trying to push Nair away.
The prosecution had argued that the victim was “particularly vulnerable” due to her intoxication, and so the case should be treated as Category 2 rape.
Noting that the suggested starting benchmark for such cases is 50 per cent higher than for Category 1 cases, Justice Woo said: “I hesitate to place all rapes of intoxicated victims automatically under Category 2 ... Rather, I would place them somewhere between Category 1 and 2 and consider all the other facts of each case before deciding on the sentence. This is not to suggest that the rape of an intoxicated victim is to be treated lightly. On the contrary, it is to be considered as a more serious crime than Category 1 rape.”
In arriving at the sentence, the judge considered that there were no aggravating factors in the case, contrary to what the prosecution had contended.
For example, the prosecution cited the “egregious nature of the offences”, as Nair had not used a condom.
They had also taken issue with Nair’s defence that the victim was flirting with him prior to the offence.
But the judge noted that “to suggest that the accused is precluded from referring to the victim’s behaviour is to tie his hands in his submissions on sentencing”.
