Witness stand not arena for humiliation in sex offence cases, judge reminds lawyers

During the trial of a man accused of raping his mother, his lawyer suggested that the woman “could have easily avoided” the assault if she had just crossed her legs and “shut the gates”.

In another case, a lawyer stared inappropriately at the breasts of a molestation victim and asked her to stand up in an attempt to show that there would be “motive” to molest her if she was wearing a low-cut top.

These examples were cited in a recent speech by High Court Judge Vincent Hoong as cross-examination questions that have no place in the Singapore courts.

Justice Hoong, who is also presiding judge of the State Courts, said: “We would do well to remember that the courtroom is not a battleground, and the witness stand is not an arena for humiliation.

“There is no honour in extracting testimony through degradation, nor is there skill in exploiting the emotional vulnerability of a witness.”

He was speaking to members of the Singapore Academy of Law at a private event held at the State Courts on July 2. The keynote address has been published on the Singapore Courts website.

Justice Hoong’s speech on navigating the sensitivities of cross-examining complainants in sexual offence cases is the latest reminder from the judiciary to the legal fraternity to be aware of the impact that the trial process can have on victims.

Most recently, in December 2024, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon emphasised the need for judges to take a more active supervisory role in the management of such cases, including the giving of evidence by complainants.

This was followed in January by the introduction of measures, such as the use of a checklist at the pretrial stage, to identify contentious issues so that the judge can shut out irrelevant lines of questioning during the trial.

In his speech, Justice Hoong noted that judicial guidance in recent years has reinforced and clarified the legislative safeguards against improper questioning. 

When conducted within proper bounds, robust cross-examination is essential to ensure that the defence can put forward its case fully and fairly, he said.

However, cross-examination can be traumatising if conducted without appropriate sensitivity.

“It is therefore incumbent upon us, as judges and counsel, to approach this process with care, precision and a heightened awareness of its potential impact,” he added.

Justice Hoong said questions that reinforce outdated notions, such as the expectation that a victim would put up physical resistance or immediately report the crime, can cross the line into being gratuitously harmful, irrelevant or demeaning.

“It is the judge’s task to discern and draw that distinction with care and vigilance,” he said.

However, lawyers must also be mindful to ensure that their questions are appropriate and relevant.

“Cross-examination is not an opportunity for theatricality nor for an advocate to demonstrate a flair for antagonistic or aggressive, repetitive and oppressive questioning,” he said.

He listed past cases where lawyers’ questions impugned the complainant’s morality, relied on harmful stereotypes and victim-shaming tactics, tried to link the complainant’s attire to the accused’s “motive”, or suggested that the assault could have been avoided if the complainant had not parted her legs.

Justice Hoong added: “It is entirely possible to challenge the reliability and credibility of a witness in a way which is measured, respectful and upholds the decorum of the court.”

Lawyer Luo Ling Ling, who has defended clients accused of committing sexual offences, told The Straits Times: “I fight all the way for my clients, but I’m also in favour of protecting sexual assault victims. Both objectives can be achieved if you consciously cross-examine the witnesses with respect and restraint.”

Ms Luo, who is the managing director of her eponymous firm, said she learnt this “the hard way” in a case where three girls had accused their stepfather of molesting them.

The lawyer said she did not cross the line, but one of the victims broke down when questioned about the contradictions between her police statement and her court testimony.

The victim was testifying via a camera, and those in the courtroom did not realise that she was crying until the counsellor who was with her informed the judge, Ms Luo recalled.

“(In) hindsight, I would have still done the same cross-examination and asked those hard questions, but I would have used a gentle tone,” she mused.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

1 in 3 vapes here laced with etomidate; MOH working with MHA to list it as illegal drug: Ong Ye Kung