PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v DCC

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore [2026] SGHC 10 Criminal Case No 29 of 2025 Between Public Prosecutor And DCC judgment [Evidence — Witnesses — Corroboration] [Criminal Law — Offences — Rape] [Criminal Law — Offences — Sexual offences] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Public Prosecutor v DCC [2026] SGHC 10 General Division of the High Court — Criminal Case No 29 of 2025 Valerie Thean J 5, 8, 9, 13–15 May, 11, 19–21 August, 9–12, 16, 17 September, 14–17, 21, 22 October, 4 December 2025 15 January 2026 Judgment reserved. Valerie Thean J: Introduction 1 The complainant (“C”), at present aged 18, is the cousin of the accused (“DCC”), at present aged 22. 1 Foot Note 1 × Agreed Statement of Facts dated 5 May 2025 (“ASOF”) at paras 2–3. 2 DCC faces three charges alleged to have arisen between 2016 to 2018, when C was between eight and ten years of age: 2 Foot Note 2 × Arraigned Charges (amended) dated 15 May 2025. 1st Charge (“A1”) That you, …, sometime between 2016 and 2018, in the master bedroom of [the Residence], Singapore, did penetrate with your penis the vagina of [C], a woman then under 14 years of age, without her consent, and you have thereby committed an

offence under section 375(1)(b) punishable under section 375(3)(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) [the “PC”]. 2nd Charge (“A2”) That you, …, on a second occasion sometime between 2016 and 2018, in the master bedroom of [the Residence], Singapore, did penetrate with your penis the vagina of [C], a woman then under 14 years of age, without her consent, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 375(1)(b) punishable under section 375(3)(b) of the PC. 3rd Charge (“A3”) That you, …, sometime between 2016 and 2018, in the master bedroom of [the Residence], Singapore, did penetrate with your fingers the vagina of [C], a woman then under 14 years of age, without her consent, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 376(2)(a) punishable under section 376(4)(b) of the PC. 3 DCC denies that any of the alleged instances of rape or sexual assault occurred. Undisputed facts 4 From the time C was two months’ old, she was cared for by her grandmother every weekday in the home of her aunt, the mother of DCC. 3 Foot Note 3 × ASOF at para 8. Her parents would attend each evening to have dinner and to bring C home. When C’s brothers were born, this babysitting arrangement came to include her brothers and her parents employed a helper to assist. 5 I explain the relevant relationships between C’s and DCC’s families 4 Foot Note 4 × ASOF at para 4. with the

following family tree diagram: 6 CMR and CFR are C’s mother and father. C is their eldest child. CYR and CYT are C’s younger brothers. AMR and AFR are DCC’s mother and father. AMR is CFR’s elder sister, and AGM is their mother. 5 Foot Note 5 × ASOF at para 5. DCC and ABR, DCC’s elder brother who is two years older than him, are a pair of brothers who were adopted at a young age by AMR and AFR. 6 Foot Note 6 × Notes of Evidence (“NE”) 21 October 2025 at p 31 lines 23−24. Thus, though DCC and ABR are biologically related to each other, 7 Foot Note 7 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 52 lines 22−24. they are not biologically related to the other persons mentioned above. At trial, CMR and CFR were called as Prosecution witnesses, while AGM, AMR and ABR were called as Defence witnesses. 7 Two of the domestic helpers employed by C’s parents are relevant to this case. The first domestic helper referred to (“FDH”) was employed from 28 December 2012 to 16 January 2017, while the second domestic helper (“SDH”) was employed from 13 January 2017 to 17 May 2018. 8 Foot Note 8 × ASOF at para 9. 8 Around 2009, AGM’s and AMR’s family moved homes to a four-storey terrace house (the “Residence”). 9 Foot Note 9 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 61 lines 6−12. The first floor of the Residence comprises a living room and a dining area, while both the second and third floors of the Residence comprise two bedrooms

each. In particular, one of the bedrooms on the third floor has an en suite toilet (the “master bedroom”) and, outside of the master bedroom, there is an L-shaped table with two chairs (the “L-shaped table”). 10 Foot Note 10 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 32 line 8 to p 33 line 17. The fourth floor is an attic. The Prosecution’s version of events The incidents 9 All the incidents are alleged to have taken place in the master bedroom. C testified that the first incident of rape and sexual assault happened sometime in 2013, when she was in pre-school and both her and DCC were about six and ten years old respectively. 11 Foot Note 11 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 22 lines 8–20. 10 At trial, C narrated what would typically occur in an incident of sexual assault by DCC, which happened about once a week. These incidents would occur in the master bedroom of the Residence. 12 Foot Note 12 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 22 lines 21–22. This room was used by AMR and ABR, who slept on the same bed. 13 Foot Note 13 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 80 lines 2–13. On the occasions where C was in the Residence, she would ordinarily be doing homework at a foldable table in the master bedroom below a cupboard. 14 Foot Note 14 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 22 line 23 to p 23 line 18. DCC would come into the master bedroom, carry C (by wrapping his arms around C, from the front) 15 Foot Note 15 × NE 9 May 2025 at p 51 lines 1–7. to the left

side of the bed, which was ABR’s side of the bed, and place her down on the bed such that her head was facing upwards. 16 Foot Note 16 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 23 lines 19–24. DCC would then close and lock the door 17 Foot Note 17 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 41 lines 4–6. and draw the curtains. 18 Foot Note 18 × NE 9 May 2025 at p 80 lines 7–17. 11 Thereafter, DCC would situate himself between C’s legs and over C, and then proceed to take off C’s shirt and pants. 19 Foot Note 19 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 24 lines 3–7. He would also take off his own shirt, pants and underwear. 20 Foot Note 20 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 25 lines 15–23. DCC would then start to touch C’s chest. 21 Foot Note 21 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 24 lines 8–15. On some occasions, he would digitally penetrate C while, on other occasions, he would proceed straight to penile penetration. 22 Foot Note 22 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 24 lines 8–15. Most of these acts of penetration were of C’s vagina, though there were instances of C’s anus being penetrated as well. 23 Foot Note 23 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 34 line 19 to p 35 line 2. While DCC was performing the sexual acts, he would be covered by a blanket drawn up to C’s neck as C had expressed discomfort with seeing the sexual acts. 24 Foot Note 24 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 34 lines 6–16. This meant that C could not see what was happening, 25 Foot Note 25 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 34 lines 6–12. though she

would look under the blanket sometimes. 26 Foot Note 26 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 25 line 1. She thought the incidents lasted for about 30 minutes to one hour although, when they first started occurring while she was younger, she could not tell the time. 27 Foot Note 27 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 26 lines 7–12. She subsequently clarified that she could not recall how long the sessions lasted when she was older. 28 Foot Note 28 × NE 9 May 2025 at p 99 line 7 to line 19. 12 DCC told C that these acts were good for her. 29 Foot Note 29 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 25 line 22 to p 26 line 2. C felt uncomfortable but assumed that, because the acts were good for her, she should not question them and thus did not do so. 30 Foot Note 30 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 26 lines 3–6. DCC also told C not to tell anyone. 31 Foot Note 31 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 26 lines 17–23. 13 An incident of sexual assault would typically come to an end in three ways: (i) when DCC finished on his own accord; (ii) when it was dinnertime and AMR called for dinner; or (iii) when a helper knocked on the door. 32 Foot Note 32 × NE 9 May 2025 at p 100 line 9 to p 101 line 13. There was a monitor in the room which displayed the feed of a closed-circuit television camera (“CCTV”) overlooking the staircase to the second floor and the aforementioned L-shaped table situated outside the master bedroom. 33 Foot Note 33 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 41 line

17 to p 42 line 11. This allowed DCC and C to see whether someone was approaching the master bedroom. 34 Foot Note 34 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 42 lines 12–22. If someone knocked on the door, DCC would put on his clothes, ask C to put on her clothes or enter the toilet to put on her clothes, and thereafter unlock the door and allow the individual to enter the room. 35 Foot Note 35 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 41 lines 9–16. At the end of these incidents, DCC would tell C to put her clothes back on. 36 Foot Note 36 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 26 lines 13–16. 14 C also described an alternative scenario in which she would be doing homework in AFR’s bedroom, which was located on the third floor opposite the master bedroom, as opposed to the master bedroom itself. On those occasions, DCC would drag C by the hand from AFR’s bedroom to the master bedroom, 37 Foot Note 37 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 22 lines 9–18. and pull C onto the bed. 38 Foot Note 38 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 45 line 21 to p 47 line 14. The sequence of events in relation to the sexual penetration and touching as narrated at [11] would then continue. 39 Foot Note 39 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 22 line 25. The First Family Meeting 15 Sometime between 2016 and 2017, C told FDH, prior to a shower, that DCC had touched her. 40 Foot Note 40 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 27 lines 5–10, NE 5 May 2025 at p 29 lines 2–9. C did not specify whether DCC had used his penis

or his hand to touch her, because she did not know the difference at the time. 41 Foot Note 41 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 28 line 25 to p 29 line 9. In response, FDH told C to tell AMR and C did so. C could not remember specifying to AMR where DCC had touched her. 42 Foot Note 42 × NE 13 May 2025 at p 106 lines 8–12. This complaint prompted what came to be referred to as the “First Family Meeting”, which was attended by C, DCC, CMR, CFR, AMR and AGM in the kitchen of the Residence. 43 Foot Note 43 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 30 lines 2–12. 16 C was unable to recall what transpired at this meeting or its exact date. 44 Foot Note 44 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 30 lines 13–17. But it must have taken place before FDH left on 16 January 2017. CMR testified that this First Family Meeting took place sometime in late 2016. 45 Foot Note 45 × CS of CMR at para 5, Agreed Bundle at p 1; NE 22 October 2025 at p 10 lines 3–8. None of the Defence’s witnesses were able to recall when this meeting took place. 46 Foot Note 46 × NE 15 October 2025 at p 85 lines 7–11; NE 21 October 2025 at p 83 lines 3–6. 17 CMR recounted as follows. According to her, she received a call from AMR requesting that she and CFR arrive at the Residence quickly. CMR and CFR went to the Residence and, upon arriving, saw FDH consoling C, who was crying. 47 Foot Note 47 × CS of CMR at para 5, Agreed Bundle at p 1. This occurred on the first

floor of the Residence, adjacent to the staircase. 48 Foot Note 48 × NE 10 September at p 57 lines 5−14. CMR asked AMR what happened, to which AMR replied by stating “C said [DCC] touch [sic] her”. 49 Foot Note 49 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 57 lines 10–12. CMR then asked C what happened, and C responded by saying “here, here, here” while crying and gesticulating in an up and down motion from waist to mid-thigh. 50 Foot Note 50 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 57 line 5 to p 59 line 15. 18 CFR recalled that two family meetings occurred as a result of C’s complaints, though he could not recall which family meeting occurred first. 51 Foot Note 51 × CS of CFR at para 7, Agreed Bundle at p 5. Nonetheless, CFR remembered that, during the family meeting on the first floor (which is where CMR placed the First Family Meeting, as stated above at [17]), C was crying and gestured at herself from her belly button downwards past the groin to her thigh. 52 Foot Note 52 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 66 line 11 to p 68 line 22. According to CFR, AMR accused C of lying. 53 Foot Note 53 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 45 lines 10–16. CFR had asked AMR to show him CCTV footage from the third floor, but AMR replied that the CCTV was not functional. 54 Foot Note 54 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 49 line 25 to p 50 line 17. After the First Family Meeting 19 It is not disputed that the outcome of the First Family

Meeting was that C was told not to go to the third floor of the Residence (where the master bedroom was situated), and that C was to remain on the first floor of the Residence to study and play. 55 Foot Note 55 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 30 lines 13–24. She also remembered that AGM had instructed her to tell everyone that she was lying, but she did not do so. 56 Foot Note 56 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 30 lines 25 to p 31 line 2. 20 Thereafter, C continued to go to the Residence after school. Initially, she did her homework in the dining area around the first floor of the Residence. 57 Foot Note 57 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 31 line 23 to p 32 line 12. However, after some time, she became uncomfortable with the mosquito bites she was sustaining at the first floor and decided to return to work in the master bedroom on the third floor instead. 58 Foot Note 58 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 32 line 13 to p 33 line 4. Thereafter, DCC continued with his sexual acts, telling C, in her words, that “I better not tell anyone this time”. 59 Foot Note 59 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 33 lines 6-7. The frequency of the incidents increased to two or three times a week and were committed on the same side of the bed in the master bedroom. 60 Foot Note 60 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 33 lines 2–8. Charge A1 21 The Prosecution’s Opening Statement situated the incident underlying charge A1 as occurring between the First Family Meeting and a

subsequent family meeting (referred to as the “Second Family Meeting”). 61 Foot Note 61 × POS at paras 9−11. By then, C was slightly older and therefore, instead of carrying C, DCC would ask C to go onto the bed or drag C by her hand to the bed. The same sequence of events (as narrated above at [11]) would occur. 62 Foot Note 62 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 33 lines 14–21. 22 C sited the incident in charge A3 as occurring before 9 November 2017, which was when she had her first period, with the incident in charge A2 taking place after her second period. 63 Foot Note 63 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 46 line 15 to p 47 line 15. For ease of flow, I introduce the facts pertinent to the charges chronologically in this section. Charge A3 23 Charge A3 concerns a distinct occasion in which DCC placed his hand in a zip-lock bag with a football design, and then used two of his fingers to penetrate C’s vagina with his fingers wrapped in the zip-lock bag. 64 Foot Note 64 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 37 lines 7–15. After penetrating her, DCC took his fingers out of C’s vagina, brought the zip-lock bag with his hand in it up to C’s face, and told her that was what she smelt like. C recalled feeling confused, and did not know why she needed to know how she smelt. 65 Foot Note 65 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 37 lines 7–15; NE 15 May 2025 at p 135 lines 18–23. Subsequently, he threw away the zip-lock bag and continued with the

sexual assault in a similar manner as in the previous incidents, namely by touching her chest and then penetrating her vagina with his penis. 66 Foot Note 66 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 38 line 15 to p 39 line 5. For ease of reference, this incident is referred to in this judgment as the “Zip-lock Bag Incident”. Charge A2 24 C testified that the incident which is the subject of charge A2 occurred on the day of the Second Family Meeting. 67 Foot Note 67 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 2 line 21. C recalled that, on this occasion, DCC had penetrated her with his penis and touched her breasts and that he only ceased committing these acts when he had to go for Chinese tuition. 68 Foot Note 68 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 3 lines 1–21. After DCC left the room for Chinese tuition, C went to bathe and she decided to tell SDH. SDH was then accompanying C when she showered as C was afraid of ghosts at the time and did not want to be left alone. 69 Foot Note 69 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 43 line 18 to p 44 line 7. C told SDH that DCC had touched her. 70 Foot Note 70 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 43 line 1 to p 44 line 12. As with her first complaint to FDH, C did not specify to SDH how or where DCC had touched her. 71 Foot Note 71 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 44 lines 8–12. The Second Family Meeting 25 SDH told C to tell AMR, and C proceeded to do so that evening. As with her previous complaint to AMR, C did not specify how or where

DCC had touched her. 72 Foot Note 72 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 44 lines 13–20. This then led to the Second Family Meeting. This was convened in AGM’s room on the second floor, with C, CMR, CFR, DCC, AMR, AFR, and AGM in attendance. 73 Foot Note 73 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 44 lines 21 to p 45 line 3. 26 C could not remember what was said during the meeting or if she or DCC spoke at all. 74 Foot Note 74 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 45 lines 1–7. 27 CMR placed this incident as occurring around January 2018, 75 Foot Note 75 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 17 line 24 to p 18 line 2. and was able to recall this as it coincided with the Primary One registration exercise for schools and that bus transport arrangements had to be made for CYR. 76 Foot Note 76 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 18 line 18 to p 20 line 14. C would have been 10 years’ old in January 2018, only turning 11 later in October. 28 According to CMR, the Second Family Meeting occurred after she received a call from AMR. 77 Foot Note 77 × CS of CMR at para 7, Agreed Bundle at p 1. CMR stated that C cried as she gesticulated and said “again mummy, again. He touched me, here, here”. 78 Foot Note 78 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 74 lines 16–19. C had gestured over her chest and her groin area. 79 Foot Note 79 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 74 line 24 to p 75 line 14. CMR also stated that, during this family meeting in AGM’s room, CFR had confronted

DCC and DCC responded with a denial and a statement that “he wanted to jump down a building”. 80 Foot Note 80 × CS of CMR at para 8, Agreed Bundle at p 2. 29 CFR recounted that the Second Family Meeting took place in AGM’s bedroom. 81 Foot Note 81 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 37 lines 18–20; CS of CFR at para 4, Agreed Bundle at p 4. At the Second Family Meeting, C gestured in an up and down motion from her belly-button to the middle of her thighs while crying and saying, “this way”. 82 Foot Note 82 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 37 line 20 to p 38 line 8. CFR cautioned that he was not sure because his attention was focused on questioning AMR and DCC. 83 Foot Note 83 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 67 line 4 to p 68 line 22. Both AMR and AGM accused C of lying, 84 Foot Note 84 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 38 lines 9–13; CS of CFR at para 4, Agreed Bundle at p 4. and CFR confronted DCC about what he did to C. 85 Foot Note 85 × CS of CFR at para 4, Agreed Bundle at p 4. AMR then told CFR not to “stress [DCC] further”. 86 Foot Note 86 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 38 lines 19–24. CFR had also asked AMR for the CCTV footage and, again, AMR responded by stating that the CCTV was not functional. 87 Foot Note 87 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 39 lines 1–12. Under cross-examination, when it was suggested to him that DCC had threatened to commit suicide, CFR stated that he could not remember this.

Although he did remember that AMR was worried that DCC would end his own life, he could not remember what prompted AMR to say that. 88 Foot Note 88 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 36 lines 6–19. After the Second Family Meeting 30 It was not disputed that the outcome of the meeting was that C’s parents agreed that she and her brothers would go home after school instead of going to the Residence. After the Second Family Meeting, C would still go to the Residence to meet another uncle and his family on weekends and, on some of those occasions, DCC would be there as well. 89 Foot Note 89 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 47 lines 18–24. C would then pretend as though nothing had happened and tried to carry on normal conversations with DCC. 90 Foot Note 90 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 47 line 25 to p 48 line 4. C’s 12th Birthday 31 For her 12th birthday in October 2019, CMR and CFR had invited AMR, AFR, ABR and DCC over without informing C. 91 Foot Note 91 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 19 lines 6–12. This was upsetting to C, who described her emotions as such: 92 Foot Note 92 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 19 lines 9–18. A: […] I really didn't want to see them on my birthday itself because, you know, a birthday is a very significant date. Then just seeing [DCC], who did such things to me, on such a significant -- sorry, on my birthday, which is such a significant day to me, was just a bit upsetting to me, including the fact

that my parents didn't even ask me whether they should invite Aunt [AMR] or not. They just told me that, "Oh, they are coming." So I was a bit stunned. 32 According to C, she wanted to avoid AMR’s family and spend as little time as possible with them. Consequently, C hid in her room and cried. 93 Foot Note 93 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 20 lines 5–24. After some time, CMR was able to coax C out of her room to cut her birthday cake though she went back to her room thereafter. 94 Foot Note 94 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 20 lines 19–24. 33 CMR testified that, on C’s 12th birthday, C had “acted very, very, very strongly”. 95 Foot Note 95 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 118 line 11. According to CMR, C hid in her room and only came out to cut her cake after CMR had told her to “come out for mama, just celebrate your birthday”. 96 Foot Note 96 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 118 lines 1–16. C then returned to her room and, after AMR’s family left, C “was crying badly”. 97 Foot Note 97 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 118 lines 21–22. CMR also stated that C had ignored all of the birthday presents given to her to such an extent that, till this day, CMR still does not know what became of the presents. 98 Foot Note 98 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 118 lines 18–21. However, despite recognising that C’s behaviour was abnormal, CMR did not ask C about what had upset her and did not know what led to C being upset at

the time. 99 Foot Note 99 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 131 lines 3–24. C’s realisation that she had been raped by DCC 34 C said she initially did not know that what DCC did to her was wrong. 100 Foot Note 100 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 31 lines 3–12. She only came to a realisation sometime between Primary Six and Secondary One, when she read a news article about a lady being raped. 101 Foot Note 101 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 5 lines 12–23. As the events detailed in the news article were similar to what she had experienced in her childhood, C conducted a Google search on what “rape” was. This realisation led to subsequent events that are referred to in this judgment as the “Laptop Incident”. The Laptop Incident 35 C recalled that she first told her mother, CMR, that she was raped sometime before 29 September 2020 when CMR had incidentally come across C’s searches on rape arising from the above. 102 Foot Note 102 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 6 line 21 to p 7 line 17. While watching a video arising out of the search, the battery of the laptop ran out. Subsequently, when CMR charged and rebooted the laptop, she came across the open tab which displayed a search for the term “rape”. CMR asked C if she was the one who searched it and C confirmed that this was so. CMR followed up to ask if the search was related to C’s experiences with DCC. C then replied that it was. After the conversation, C was under

the impression that CMR knew she had been raped but was not aware of how long the incidents lasted. 103 Foot Note 103 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 151 lines 8–12. That was, by C’s account, the extent of the conversation between her and CMR pursuant to the Laptop Incident, and she could not remember if CMR and CFR had taken any follow-up action. 104 Foot Note 104 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 2 line 11 to p 3 line 16. C was also unsure as to whether CFR was aware that she had told CMR she was raped. 105 Foot Note 105 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 18 lines 7–24. Informing CGF about the incidents of rape/sexual assault 36 The first time C went into detail about the sexual incidents was in a conversation with her friend (“CGF”), on the night of 28 September 2020. CGF was C’s Secondary One and Secondary Two friend in their secondary school. 106 Foot Note 106 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 8 lines 1–4. They shared a close relationship and would tell each other about their personal problems. 107 Foot Note 107 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 8 lines 10–15. 37 Around the time of the disclosure, C no longer shared a room with her brothers. She found that, “left alone with [her] own thoughts”, she had flashbacks and nightmares and would either cry before sleeping or wake up crying. 108 Foot Note 108 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 12 lines 1–10. After hearing a comment made by a student in school that all smart people apparently have sex with

their cousins, 109 Foot Note 109 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 9 lines 2–20. C told CGF about the statement, and CGF casually responded by asking C, “do you have sex with your cousin?”. 110 Foot Note 110 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 10 lines 1–11. This upset C, and she spent the day thinking about it. That night, C texted CGF via WhatsApp to inform her about the sexual incidents with DCC. In the course of these messages, C also informed CGF about her “horrific” 12th birthday where she hid in her room for an hour after DCC and his family visited. 111 Foot Note 111 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 18 lines 13–23. Informing CMR and CFR 38 While C was confiding in CGF on WhatsApp, she was physically positioned next to CMR in CMR’s bedroom. 112 Foot Note 112 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 27 line 4 to p 28 line 2. In that context, C testified that she felt like she should have told CMR about what had occurred to her in greater detail, as she was under the impression that CMR did not comprehend the full extent of the incidents. 39 Sometime between 29 and 30 September 2020, C told CMR about what happened and the extent to which they occurred, namely that they involved rape and that they happened frequently during the period of 2013 to late 2017 or early 2018. When C told CMR, C testified that CMR was very shocked and was crying on her bed. 113 Foot Note 113 × NE 8 May 2025, at p 28 lines 6-9. 40 CMR and CFR testified that

their first realisation of the true extent and nature of the sexual acts committed by DCC on C was on the night of 29 September. C came crying into the room where they were. CFR left the room, and C told CMR about the history of rape. CMR later informed CFR in a WhatsApp message as follows: 114 Foot Note 114 × Section 231 Notice dated 5 September 2025 at pp 11−15. CFR (10.32pm): What has happened? CFR (10.32pm): Don’t make her emotional….That will affect her exam tmr CFR (10.46pm): ?? CFR (10.50pm): What happened? CMR (10.55pm): Our child hood care for her failed badly CMR (10.55pm): She is trying to sleep CFR (10.55pm): ??? CMR (10.56pm): She says [DCC] ra[p]ed her since she was v young CMR (10.56pm): 6 yrs old onwards CMR (10.56pm): And she did not know about it as rape till Dec education in p5 CMR (10.56pm): Sex CFR (10.57pm): Why not we just cut tie with [DCC]? He is so bad CFR (10.58pm): Why is she still so friendly to [DCC] whenever she see him? CFR (10.59pm): Just tell [AMR] that we don’t want [DCC] to come to out house!!!! CMR (10.59pm): I dunno CMR (10.59pm): Haiz CMR (10.59pm): So heart pain CMR (10.59pm): I really dunno how to react now CFR (10.59pm): Rape her? CMR (10.59pm): Yes CMR (11.00pm): She says put his penis in her CFR (11.00pm): But he was just p3 then CMR (11.00pm): Ya…That’s why she say dunno how could someone so young CMR (11.00pm): Till she was in

p5 CMR (11.01pm): 6 yrs old to 11 CMR (11.01pm): Somemoee she says that time confront [DCC] 1st time CMR (11.01pm): [AGM] pulled her in her room n insisted she tell [AMR] that she is lying n insisted that [C] is lying CFR (11.02pm): Just tell [AMR] that we don’t want [DCC] to come to our house anymore! CMR (11.02pm): He don’t come over so often already CMR (11.02pm): I m more focused on [C] mentsk CMR (11.03pm): She says she keeps thinking about it CFR (11.03pm): Must counsel [C] to move on! She has a life forward CMR (11.03pm): N affecting her studies CMR (11.03pm): Yes! I told her that CMR (11.03pm): Collect herself n move on CFR (11.03pm): Can u take more leaves and stay with her during this period of time… CFR (11.04pm): U r very important to hee CFR (11.04pm): Her CMR (11.04pm): I am on leave this Thurs CMR (11.04pm): Friday n 7th Oct CFR (11.04pm): Next week? CFR (11.04pm): No point keeping so many leaves CFR (11.04pm): We are not going anywhere. CFR (11.04pm): She needs us CFR (11.05pm): Or tell [redacted] that u need to be at home for family reasons during this period of time The police report 41 Sometime after C informed CMR as to the full extent of the incidents, CMR read the WhatsApp messages exchanged between C and CGF, as C would leave her phone at night in CMR’s bedroom. 115 Foot Note 115 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 28 lines 10–18. According to C, CMR was upset by the

severity of the incidents as disclosed by C in the text messages. CMR informed CFR about the messages, and both of them encouraged C to lodge a police report when she was ready to do so. 116 Foot Note 116 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 29 lines 1–2. 42 Around the same time, CFR informed AMR about the incidents. 43 C was initially reluctant to report these incidents to the police, as she was worried this would ruin the relationship between her family and DCC’s family. 117 Foot Note 117 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 29 line 3 to p 30 line 3. She explained that AGM had, in the meantime, been upset with her. 118 Foot Note 118 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 29 lines 10–15. On 3 January 2021, CFR reassured C in a conversation that he was fine with C lodging the police report, and that she should stop worrying about his familial relations with AMR. 119 Foot Note 119 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 30 lines 6–15. Later that day, C went with CMR and CFR to lodge a police report. 120 Foot Note 120 × CS of CFR at para 10, Agreed Bundle at p 5. The medical evidence 44 Subsequently, on 3 February 2021, C was examined at the KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (“KKH”) by one Dr Li Xinyi (“Dr Li”), who was an Associate Consultant at the Department of Urogynaecology at KKH at the time. 121 Foot Note 121 × CS of Dr Li Xinyi at paras 1−2, Agreed Bundle at p 10. Dr Li’s medical report dated 3 March 2021 (the “KKH Report”) concluded that

C had no observable injuries and normal pelvic development, though there were old tears at the three and eight o’clock position on her hymen. 122 Foot Note 122 × KKH Report at p 3, Agreed Bundle at p 13. 45 On 30 March 2021, C was interviewed at the Child Guidance Clinic at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) by Dr Parvathy Pathy (“Dr Parvathy”), a Psychiatrist (Senior Consultant) at the time. 123 Foot Note 123 × CS of Dr Parvathy Pathy at paras 1−2, Agreed Bundle at p 31. Consequent to this examination, Dr Parvathy produced a medical report dated 1 April 2021 (the “IMH Report”). 46 C was referred thereafter to Pink Elephant Psychology Services (“Pink Elephant”) for counselling and psychological treatment. 124 Foot Note 124 × CS of Ms Lau Wan Xin at paras 1−2, Agreed Bundle at p 190. Between 25 June 2021 and 25 February 2022, C attended ten 90-minute sessions conducted by Ms Lau Wan Xin (“Ms Lau”), who was the Principal Psychologist and sole proprietor of Pink Elephant. 125 Foot Note 125 × CS of Ms Lau Wan Xin at para 1, Agreed Bundle at p 190. Ms Lau’s Counselling Therapy Report (the “Pink Elephant Report”) dated 29 January 2024 explained that, because C presented with nightmares, difficulties with sleep, negative emotions, loss of interest, excessive nail scratching, and self-blame, 126 Foot Note 126 × Pink Elephant Report at p 1, Agreed Bundle at p 191. C was referred to

undergo Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. This sought to give careful and gradual exposure of a victim to their own memories of their trauma in a controlled manner through writing a “trauma narrative”. 127 Foot Note 127 × Pink Elephant Report at p 1, Agreed Bundle at p 191. C narrated such a trauma narrative to Ms Lau over the course of four sessions between 21 December 2021 and 28 January 2022, and this was adduced into evidence and is referred to in this judgment as the “Trauma Narrative”. 128 Foot Note 128 × Trauma Narrative, Agreed Bundle at pp 193−206. The Defence’s version of events 47 DCC denied that any sexual acts between him and C had taken place. 48 At trial, DCC contended that there was no opportunity for him to have committed any such sexual acts for various reasons: First, this was so on account of his busy schedule. When he was in Primary School (from 2013 to 2015), he had tuition at the Residence every day which would last up till dinnertime. 129 Foot Note 129 × DCS at para 226(b); NE 14 October 2025 at p 21 lines 2−25. When he was in Secondary School (from 2016 to 2018), he had afterschool Co-Curricular Activities (“CCA”) twice every week, 130 Foot Note 130 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 23 lines 6−18. and tuition at the Residence on days when he did not have CCA. 131 Foot Note 131 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 24 lines 16−25. Second, the children were not

allowed to lock the bedroom doors in the Residence. 132 Foot Note 132 × DCS at para 241; NE 14 October 2025 at p 15 line 15 to p 16 line 19. Furthermore, the door of the master bedroom in which the sexual acts allegedly took place had alignment issues with its doorframe which made it difficult to close, and that force would have to be used to do so such that any attempt to close it completely would result in a loud bang. 133 Foot Note 133 × DCS at para 242; NE 14 October 2025 at p 13 lines 2−20. Third, the adults, the helpers and the children in the home were constantly moving around the home and, thus, it would be highly improbable for the alleged sexual acts to have gone unnoticed. 134 Foot Note 134 × DCS at paras 228−239. Structure of analysis 49 In the present case, the first issue is to ascertain whether there is any corroboration between C’s testimony and other pieces of evidence before the court. If there is none, C’s evidence must be unusually convincing in order to sustain a conviction: see Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter [2020] 1 SLR 486 (“GCK”) at [88]−[89]. Is there corroboration in the present case? 50 I start then with the issue of whether there is corroboration. Our courts adopt a liberal approach to corroboration, focusing on the substance, relevance and confirmatory value of the evidence in question: see AOF v Public Prosecutor [2012] 3 SLR 34

(“AOF”) at [173], citing Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 (“Mohammed Liton”) at [43]. 51 During oral closing submissions, the Prosecution was asked to clarify its case on whether any evidence amounted to corroboration. The Prosecution clarified that its case on corroboration was limited to C’s symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), arising from the evidence of Dr Parvathy and Ms Lau. 135 Foot Note 135 × NE 4 December 2025 at p 3 line 20 to p 4 line 12. 52 The purpose of the IMH Report was to confirm if C was fit to testify in court. 136 Foot Note 136 × Written Questions Posed by Defence and Responses of Dr Parvathy at S/N 1, Agreed Bundle at p 37. The IMH Report also contained C’s self-reported mental ailments, namely, that she had unpleasant and intrusive thoughts of DCC’s acts, flashbacks, and difficulty falling asleep. 137 Foot Note 137 × IMH Report at p 4, Agreed Bundle at p 35. Dr Parvathy testified at trial that, as a psychiatrist, she also assessed whether C had any psychological issues which necessitated further assessment and management. 138 Foot Note 138 × NE 20 August 2025 at p 6 lines 10−13 and p 32 lines 1−7. In this regard, Dr Parvathy noted that C had presented with PTSD symptoms, 139 Foot Note 139 × NE 20 August 2025 at p 19 lines 4−11 and p 36 lines 1−23. including insomnia, flashbacks, and intrusive and

unpleasant memories of what DCC did to her. 140 Foot Note 140 × NE 20 August 2025 at p 18 line 20 to p 21 line 12. Nonetheless, Dr Parvathy accepted that there was no finding of mental disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (“DSM-5”) in the IMH Report, 141 Foot Note 141 × NE 20 August 2025 at p 46 line 20 to p 48 line 9. and confirmed that she “did not make a diagnosis of the full [PTSD]” in relation to C. 142 Foot Note 142 × NE 20 August 2025 at p 25 lines 13−17 and p 36 lines 4−6. 53 Ms Lau, on her part, testified that, at C’s first session with her, C presented with traumatic stress symptoms. 143 Foot Note 143 × NE 21 August 2025 at p 8 lines 12−22. The observation of the symptoms was based on the DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis criteria. 144 Foot Note 144 × NE 21 August 2025 at p 9 line 1 to p 10 line 5. However, as Ms Lau observed that C was still able to function normally, she did not make a diagnosis of PTSD. Instead, she diagnosed that C had traumatic stress symptoms not amounting to PTSD. 145 Foot Note 145 × NE 21 August 2025 at p 10 lines 6−15. 54 In my view, the medical evidence adduced does not amount to corroboration of the charges in this case. Dr Parvathy’s and Ms Lau’s assessments, made some two years after the last incident, were centred on how C could be treated for various symptoms she presented at the time they saw her.

They relied on C’s self-reports made between 30 March 2021 to 28 January 2022. Neither verified any causal link between the alleged sexual assaults and C’s symptoms. 146 Foot Note 146 × NE 20 August 2025 at p 32 lines 10−20; NE 21 August 2025 at p 92 line 20 to p 93 line 1. In context, the reports did not show that C’s symptoms were caused by prior sexual assault or that the alleged assaults took place. Rather, on the assumption that such sexual assault took place, the observed symptoms were consistent with the assault having taken place. This is insufficient to found corroboration. The applicable standard 55 Where the uncorroborated evidence of a single eye-witness forms the sole basis for conviction, this evidence must be so “unusually convincing” as to overcome any doubts that might arise from a lack of corroboration (see GCK at [88]). 56 As held by Sundaresh Menon CJ in GII v Public Prosecutor [2025] 3 SLR 578 (“GII”) at [26]–[28], the issue of whether one’s evidence is unusually convincing is typically approached from two angles. First, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt within the Prosecution’s case, which means that the Prosecution’s case must itself be internally and externally consistent such that there is sufficient evidence to establish the accused person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at least on a prima facie basis. Pertinently, weaknesses in the case

for the Defence cannot ordinarily be called in aid to shore up what is lacking in the Prosecution’s case. Second, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the totality of the evidence, which includes a consideration of the case mounted by the Defence comprising both the assertions put forth by the accused person as well as the evidence he has adduced. The Defence’s contentions on C’s evidence 57 I therefore turn to analyse the Prosecution’s case first, consonant with the approach in GII. In this context, I scrutinise the internal and external consistency of C’s evidence. The Defence raised “11 key reasons why [C]’s evidence does not rise to the level of being unusually convincing”. 147 Foot Note 147 × DCS at para 154. Three of these reasons relate to matters raised in DCC’s defence. I deal in this section with the eight that impinge directly on the consistency of C’s evidence and the first angle mentioned in GII. In this context, the Defence’s suggestions on the reliability of a complainant must be founded on an evidential basis; mere suggestion by counsel would not be sufficient: Kwan Peng Hong v Public Prosecutor [2000] 2 SLR(R) 824 at [27]. C’s “first reveal” 58 The Defence submits that C was inconsistent in her evidence on when she first revealed that she was being subjected to sexual assault. 148 Foot Note 148 × DCS at paras 155−161. In her Trauma Narrative, C

states that CGF was the first person she had talked to about the alleged rapes. Similarly, in a police statement recorded on 10 January 2024, C stated that she had “told [CGF] first […] before telling my mother about it”. 149 Foot Note 149 × Section 22 Statement recorded on 10 January 2024 at A7. However, in her testimony in court, C had stated that her mother, CMR, was the first person who she had informed. 59 C explained why she had omitted mention of her initial complaint to her mother as such: 150 Foot Note 150 × NE 19 August 2025 at p 37 lines 2−6. A: Because the incident with my mother -- the laptop incident was actually -- because as I say it was not very significant to me because nothing was done after that. So I don’t really treat it as a significant incident to me. 60 This was consonant with C’s evidence on how the Laptop Incident transpired (as set out above at [35]) and how her mother had essentially disregarded her initial complaint: 151 Foot Note 151 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 7 lines 18−25. Q: You have mentioned your mother. Is your mother the first person that you spoke to about the acts which [DCC] did to you? A: I spoke about it very briefly, yeah, but later on – sorry, I didn’t talk to my mum much about it, and then later on I told my mum, so I told my friend [CGF] about it in more detail through the chats. I believe it is somewhere between 28 or 29 September 2021

or 2020. 61 This is also consistent with C’s testimony on her mother’s reaction when told about the incidents of rape on 29 September. CMR was: 152 Foot Note 152 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 28 lines 8-9. very shocked. She was on her bed again and she was crying this time. … And she just told me that she is so sorry she misunderstood me and she didn't know that it happened to such an extent. 62 That CMR did not understand C’s revelation as one of rape is supported by CMR’s text of 29 September to CFR. On the stand, CMR remembered the Laptop Incident but said she had not registered that C was telling her she had been raped. 153 Foot Note 153 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 36 line 18 to p 40 line 23. 63 Thus, while the Laptop Incident may have been C’s first report from C’s point of view, this was not a clear and direct report of rape, in contrast to her WhatsApps with CGF. CGF was the first person with whom she discussed the first incidents of rape. C’s first clear report to CMR was made after her WhatsApps to CGF. This explains the difference between the position taken in the police report and Trauma Narrative, and her evidence in court. Evidence involving revelations to CGF 64 Three of the Defence’s “11 key reasons” deal with information given to CGF regarding the incidents in a series of WhatsApp messages. Before I turn to the Defence’s contentions, I make a preliminary point that is

pertinent to the analysis of the WhatsApp messages as a whole. Reading the entirety of the WhatsApp messages, the girls’ exchange was informal and casual. They were also around 13 years old at the time. It would be inappropriate to put a literal interpretation on each word in the manner that the Defence’s submissions do. The CCTV feed 65 It is asserted that C stated in her WhatsApp messages to CGF that the CCTV was the sole reason that DCC could carry on without suspicion, premised on this extract of C’s WhatsApp conversation with CGF: 154 Foot Note 154 × Agreed Bundle at p 101, S/N 282−289 of Annex A. CGF: HOw TF did he get away with it CGF: It doesn’t make sensee C: I TELL U C: HE WLD DRAG ME TO HIS MOTHER’S ROOM WHEN I WAS YOUNGEE C: * YOUNGER C: AND THEN DO IT CGF: BUT HIS MOTHER DIDNT SUSPECT ANYTHING?! C: CUS THERE IS A CCTV CAMERA IN THE ROOM TO SEE IF ANYONE WAS COMING 66 I reiterate my opinion that this WhatsApp exchange must be viewed in its context. Fundamentally, C did not state that the CCTV was the sole reason that DCC avoided detection. I disagree with the Defence assertion that the exchange should be read in this manner. Further, C’s reference to the CCTV in that WhatsApp conversation was consistent with her evidence in court, that one of the reasons for the lack of detection was the use of the CCTV outside the master bedroom and the display of the CCTV feed

overlooking the room’s exterior in the master bedroom itself, and that DCC would use this to see whether someone was approaching the master bedroom. C’s evidence on the CCTV feed formed part of her narrative as to how a typical incident of sexual assault would transpire. For example, in C’s examination-in-chief, she stated as follows: 155 Foot Note 155 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 41 lines 17−25. Q: So you told us that the door would be locked when these incidents were happening. How would you or [DCC] know whether someone was coming? A: There is a monitor on P59 -- P59 and P60 on the cupboard, on the white cupboard. This monitor was overlooking the staircase, and I believe the L-shaped table as well. So, we could see -- sorry, there were CCTV cameras there, so we could see when someone was coming up the staircase and going to the room. Similarly, in a statement recorded by the police on 4 January 2021, C stated the following: 156 Foot Note 156 × Section 22 Statement recorded on 4 January 2021 at p 2. … There used to be a CCTV camera pointing at the corridor leading to the bedroom. The computer in the room was always on and it would show the live screening of the CCTV. So whenever [DCC] heard noise whenever someone was walking up the staircase, he would pause and take a look at the monitor. There would also be times that he asked me to check out the CCTV and I would do

so… 67 Therefore, the WhatsApp exchange was consistent with her evidence. While in the exchange C had not alluded to other scenarios not involving the use of the CCTV, to expect her to exhaustively list all the methods DCC used in such a casual WhatsApp conversation would be unrealistic. 68 Relatedly, the Defence submits that there is an “illogic” in this facet of C’s evidence, 157 Foot Note 157 × DCS at para 175. on the basis that it cannot be reconciled with C’s description of how DCC would be positioned while sexually assaulting her. As recounted above at [11], while DCC was performing the sexual acts, DCC would be covered by a blanket drawn up to C’s neck: 158 Foot Note 158 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 34 line 6−16. Q: So what did you feel physically when these incidents would occur? A: I felt quite uncomfortable. Actually, I believe around the start of the incidents, like even before the first family meeting, I was uncomfortable with seeing such acts, so I asked [DCC] to, like, put a blanket to the point of my neck so I couldn't see what was happening. Q: So you have described a blanket. (Inaudible). You described a blanket up to your neck. So where would [DCC] be in relation to that blanket? A: [DCC] would be under the blanket. 69 The Defence also drew attention to this portion of the Notes of Evidence, 159 Foot Note 159 × DCS at para 175. where C agreed that DCC would not have

been able to refer to the CCTV feed while sexually assaulting her: 160 Foot Note 160 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 30 lines 2−11. Q: If indeed [DCC’s] blanket or the blanket was covered all the way to your neck, and you had testified that [DCC] is always under the blanket, [C], there is no way that [DCC] can see the screen, because the screen would be behind him in this cupboard, whereas you are at -- he is facing the bed, the pillow board. Do you agree, disagree or have something else to -- you wish to explain? A: I agree, but we could hear footsteps. 70 In my view, C’s explanation for her answer above during re-examination is acceptable: 161 Foot Note 161 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 132 lines 11−21. A: I meant that [DCC] and I could see the monitor -- there was -- someone was coming up the staircase. If we heard footsteps, then we would look at the monitor and see. Q: So when you say, “we”, you meant both [DCC] and yourself; correct? A: Yes. Q: So how would [DCC] look at the monitor screen that you described? A: He would remove the blanket and then he would turn his body to look. 71 A final point on the CCTV assertions is that, after the Defence’s witnesses came on the stand, a new contention was made that the CCTV system became defective shortly after the family moved into the home. Up to that point, it was not a part of the Defence case. This assertion was not put to C in

cross-examination, nor was any independent evidence adduced as to the CCTV becoming defective. CFR mentioned in passing while recounting the family meetings that the light on the CCTV camera was on despite AMR contending that the CCTV was defective. 162 Foot Note 162 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 38 line 25 to p 39 line 12. Defence counsel did not cross-examine him on the light being on or put any alternative suggestion to him. In the circumstances, the written submission that C’s assertions are “plainly false because the CCTV system spoiled shortly after [DCC] and his family moved into [the Residence]” 163 Foot Note 163 × DCS para 171. is bereft of evidential basis. C’s message that her brother “saw [DCC] doing it” 72 The Defence took issue with the following set of WhatsApp messages between C and CGF: 164 Foot Note 164 × Agreed Bundle at p 136, S/N 572−576 of Annex A. C: btw there was only one where my brother saw him doing it while we were watching smth I think it was a cartoon. C: So I always keep my bro beside me whenever that cousin comes lol so I have proof. CGF: OHHh wow CGF: Ur bro IssA legend C: yas 73 Specifically, the Defence submits that, in these WhatsApp messages, C was alluding to CYR witnessing an instance of her being raped. 165 Foot Note 165 × DCS at para 176. In support of this specific interpretation of these messages, the Defence draws attention to the fact

that, in C’s WhatsApp chat with CGF up till the point these messages were sent, C had not mentioned any other type of sexual contact with DCC other than rape. The Defence then seeks to crystalise a purported inconsistency by pointing to C’s evidence (both in court and in her Trauma Narrative) that CYR had witnessed DCC touching C’s thighs, but not raping C. 166 Foot Note 166 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 55 line 21 to p 56 line 5; Agreed Bundle at p 201. 74 In my view, the Defence’s submissions on this point are contrived and put an excessively literal interpretation on the casual WhatsApp messages exchanged between C and CGF. C was talking in the present tense. Plainly, “him doing it” is an inherently vague phrase and, when read in the context of the entire message (that all three persons were watching a cartoon), it could not have meant that C’s brother had witnessed a rape. CGF’s omission to follow on with any query indicated CGF understood it was not that a rape was seen. C clarified in re-examination that, while there was no mention of the word “molest” in the messages, she mentally grouped molest and rape together as she had been talking about the sexual incidents in general and the rape and molest occurred together. 167 Foot Note 167 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 151 lines 23 to p 152 line 10. I accept this clarification. C saying that she was “still pure” and a “virgin” 75 C had said

in WhatsApp messages to CGF that she was “still pure” and that she would “stay single 4 ever … [a]nd a virgin”. 168 Foot Note 168 × DCS at para 183. 76 Under cross-examination, C provided the following explanation for these WhatsApp messages: 169 Foot Note 169 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 88 lines 15–19. A: Basically I would not like to have sexual intercourse with anyone. Ignoring the previous incidents with [DCC], I would not like to have sexual intercourse with anyone at all. It’s a more looking forward statement. 77 Pertinently, C had sent these WhatsApp messages to CGF after she had told CGF about the sexual assaults DCC had allegedly visited upon her. CGF herself did not interpret the messages in the manner that defence counsel suggested. CGF explained under cross-examination how she interpreted “still pure”: 170 Foot Note 170 × NE 11 September 2025 at p 12 lines 7–11. Q: And so what was your understanding of her message when she said, "I am still pure, I swear"? A.  That she doesn't actively consume sexual content on social media or on the internet. That's my understanding. 78 C’s evidence that these messages were “forward looking” was also consistent with CGF’s evidence: 171 Foot Note 171 × NE 11 September 2025 at p 13 lines 3–14. Q: Again, with reference to the messages surrounding 2 serial numbers 4517 and 4518, can you tell us what the context of these messages

were? A: From what I understand, [C] wasn't interested in getting into relationships or getting married and, yeah, she just wasn't interested. Q: I refer specifically to serial number 4518, where [C] said to you that she's going to stay a virgin. What do you understand [C] to mean by this statement? A: Okay. From what I understand is that [C] didn't call her getting raped by her cousin as sexual intercourse, so -- but she counted, she thought of herself as a virgin. Other inconsistencies raised 79 Finally, various alleged inconsistencies raised were not inconsistencies at all when seen in context that they pertained to statements made in a casual WhatsApp chat: (a) C stated on WhatsApp that she was “5 or 6” years of age when the very first act of rape took place, 172 Foot Note 172 × DCS at para 163(a). whereas in evidence she stated that she was “about 6”. There is no inconsistency however because, in both cases, her reference was that it was before Primary School and her birthday is in October. (b) C had only mentioned to CGF she had been “raped when younger” without raising charge A3. This is consistent with C’s evidence that she felt the Zip-lock Bag Incident was “extremely embarrassing”, 173 Foot Note 173 × NE 19 August 2025 at p 14 line 18 to p 15 line 4. and first disclosed the Zip-lock Bag Incident to Ms Lau while creating her Trauma Narrative between 2021 and 2022

because she trusted her and “felt personally closer to her”. 174 Foot Note 174 × NE 19 August 2025 at p 20 lines 14−23. (c) C referred to “my maid” alluding to one helper whereas, in court, it became clear that two helpers were involved. 175 Foot Note 175 × DCS at paras 163(d), 167, 168. In context, a simple explanation would be that C was referring to the domestic helper employed by her parents at the material time. (d) C stated that the caretaking arrangement came to an end because she told her maid. 176 Foot Note 176 × DCS at para 163(e). This was correct as the second complaint led to the Second Family Meeting, which did result in the caretaking arrangement coming to an end. (e) C said DCC would “drag me to his mother’s room…and then do it”. The Defence submits that this is inconsistent with C’s evidence that she would already be in the master bedroom when DCC would enter and commence his assault. 177 Foot Note 177 × DCS at para 163(c). This completely ignores C’s evidence in her examination-in-chief (recounted above at [14]), that there was an alternative scenario for how these assaults would commence, where she would be doing homework in AFR’s bedroom when DCC would drag her to the master bedroom. 178 Foot Note 178 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 45 line 21 to p 47 line 14. 80 I therefore reject the Defence’s submissions on the WhatsApp messages. The Zip-lock Bag Incident 81 The

Zip-lock Bag Incident is the focus of charge A3. The Defence submits that C’s evidence on the Zip-lock Bag Incident “appears to be an afterthought that was subsequently conjured”. 179 Foot Note 179 × DCS at para 190. 82 The Defence points to the fact that the first time C mentioned the Zip-lock Bag Incident was in her Trauma Narrative, which was prepared after she had reported her alleged sexual assault to her parents and to the police. 180 Foot Note 180 × DCS at para 191. It is not disputed that the first report of the Ziplock Bag Incident was during her Trauma Narrative. In this regard, C’s delay in reporting the Zip-lock Bag Incident is not, on its own, reason to disbelieve C’s evidence on this specific incident. As explained in Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr [2019] 3 SLR 749 (“Yue Roger Jr”) at [30], there is no general rule requiring victims of sexual offences to report the offences immediately or in a timely fashion. Instead, the explanation for any such delay in reporting is to be considered and assessed by the court on a case-by-case basis. 83 In this case, C’s evidence-in-chief was that she had no idea of its significance and was confused by the incident. When cross-examined as to why she had not revealed the incident to the police earlier, she said: “I personally felt that the Ziplock bag incident was extremely embarrassing and I could not make sense of why it was

happening to begin with.” Cross-examined at length about whether the other sexual acts embarrassed her, she explained the delineation in her mind in this way: 181 Foot Note 181 × NE 19 August 2025 at p 15 lines 2−4; p 18 line 20. Because the other incidents happened many times repeatedly over many years, but the Ziplock bag incident only happened once and I never understood why he did that as well. 84 She explained she revealed the incident to Ms Lau because she trusted her. 182 Foot Note 182 × NE 19 August 2025 at p 20 line 21. These two responses of embarrassment and confusion are consistent because it would have been the first time that C was confronted with the smell of her vagina and, at the age of nine or ten, would not have the maturity to make sense of it. I accept that C’s focus after her report to her mother on 29 September had been on rape, not digital penetration, and CMR’s WhatsApp text of 29 September also reflected that penile-vaginal penetration was the focus of her enquiry. This is consistent too with the focus of her realisation at the time of her report to her mother, that the acts of sexual assault committed by DCC were rape, 183 Foot Note 183 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 6 lines 7–9. and her flashbacks, which focused on vaginal penetration. 184 Foot Note 184 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 13 lines 1–4. I am satisfied that C has adequately accounted for her delay in reporting

the Zip-lock Bag Incident. 85 Second, the Defence asserts 185 Foot Note 185 × DCS at para 199. two inconsistencies in C’s evidence in court on how the Zip-lock Bag Incident occurred and C’s account of it in her Trauma Narrative. I reproduce the relevant portion of the Trauma Narrative below: 186 Foot Note 186 × Agreed Bundle at p 199. I remembered once he took a plastic bag, he put his finger in it before putting inside my vigina [sic] and he took it out and told me to smell it. He said that is how I smelt before throwing it away. I was feeling confused again. It felt like I didn’t understand what was happening and why this is happening. I know that it is something I don’t look forward to. 86 This narrative recounted the use of a single finger. Subsequently, in her examination-in-chief, C said that DCC had used two fingers: 187 Foot Note 187 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 37 lines 7–15. Q: So other than using his penis to penetrate your vagina, did he do any other sexual acts that you can recall? A: There was once he put two fingers -- sorry, his hand into a zip lock bag. It was a football -- it was a zip-lock bag with a football design, and he used two of his fingers to penetrate my vagina with the zip-lock bag. Yeah. Afterwards he took it out, and then he put the zip-lock bag to my face and then he told me that it was how I smelt like. 87 In my view, this discrepancy as to whether DCC

had used one or two fingers does not amount to a material inconsistency in her overall testimony. The Trauma Narrative was the first time she recalled the incident to Ms Lau. C maintained throughout her testimony in court, in her evidence-in-chief, under cross-examination and re-examination, that DCC had used two fingers in the Zip-lock Bag Incident. The charge was therefore amended at the end of the re-examination from the use of the singular, finger, to the plural, fingers. C also maintained that she knew two fingers were used as DCC had brought the Zip-lock bag, with his fingers in it, up to her face. 188 Foot Note 188 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 135 lines 5−23. 88 The second asserted inconsistency lay in what occurred after DCC had ceased digital penetration. In court, C testified that, after DCC stopped digitally penetrating C her, he proceeded to have sex with her. 189 Foot Note 189 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 78 lines 18–24. The Defence submits that, in contrast, the account in her Trauma Narrative gave “the impression” that the Zip-lock Bag Incident “was a standalone incident of sexual assault”. 190 Foot Note 190 × DCS at para 145(f). 89 Ms Lau had explained in court that memories are often recorded in fragments, and the Trauma Narrative recorded the flow of memories. 191 Foot Note 191 × NE 21 August 2025 at p 31 line 19 to p 33 line 15. By the passage of time as to everyone else,

we will gradually forget some of the incidents, all of us, but when we have trauma victims because the way they store their memory is already different, their recall will also be different. So if you were to imagine fragmented memory means it is not something that flows in our brain chronologically, so it is not stored nicely in our long-term memory. So it comes by, flashes out whenever they want and that contributes to what we call the intrusive symptoms. 90 Reading the Trauma Narrative in its context, I find that there was no inconsistency in omitting reference to vaginal penetration following after the Zip-lock Bag Incident. The Trauma Narrative does not “give the impression” that it was a standalone incident. Rather, it was recounted as an unusual event that had happened during one of the regular instances of assault. Relatedly, the reference started with “once”, and then the account reverts to her feelings about the usual instances of assault: “I was feeling confused again. It felt like I didn’t understand what was happening and why this is happening. I know that it is something I don’t look forward to [emphasis added].” 91 On a related note, I deal with the Defence submission in relation to C first stating in her Trauma Narrative that DCC used a “plastic bag” while in court, she explained it was a Zip-lock bag with a football design. The Defence submitted that: “it is

unusual that [C] would be able to describe the ziplock bag in more detail in Court as compared to when she was constructing the Trauma Narrative, since: (i) the [Trauma Narrative] would have been closer in time to the alleged incident; and (ii) the [Trauma Narrative] was constructed in the context of [C] attending Court [sic] therapy and not an adversarial Court setting [emphasis in original]”. 192 Foot Note 192 × DCS at para 145(g). This scepticism about the refinement in detail was not put to C nor was it tested with Ms Lau. To the contrary, it could be equally in keeping with Ms Lau’s evidence (see [89]) to posit that the Trauma Narrative was the first time the memory surfaced as a fragment, and that C’s evidence in court could well have been a more considered view of what she thereafter recalled on fuller reflection over a longer period of time. Ms Lau’s role was also not to query for details but to record the memory fragments as they arose. 92 In conclusion, contrary to the Defence’s submission, in my view, C’s testimony of the Zip-lock Bag Incident is authentic and not “conjured”. C’s perspective on the incident was also peculiarly in keeping with her age and experience. Generality of C’s evidence 93 In contrast to the Defence’s allegations regarding the Zip-lock Bag Incident, for the alleged incidents of rape, the Defence contends that, although C’s allegations concern

more than 300 assaults, her evidence is vague and sweeping, 193 Foot Note 193 × DCS at paras 184−189. and draws a conclusion therefrom that her evidence could not be probative. 194 Foot Note 194 × DCS at para 189. 94 In my view, this generality is unsurprising in the light of C’s age at the time of the incidents and the time which has passed since. The Defence counsel’s submission rested on an assumption that the larger the number of incidents, the more specificity there would be. The opposite assumption, however, could as easily be true, in that the larger the number of incidents, the harder it would be to distinguish between them. C had mentioned in examination-in-chief, “there were too many incidences so I tend to mix up”. 195 Foot Note 195 × NE 8 May 2025 at p2 lines 24-25. At various points in her cross-examination, C was honest about her inability to recall, such as when asked how long the acts took after she was able to tell the time. 196 Foot Note 196 × NE 9 May 2025 at p 99 lines 3–19. At another point she spoke about her mind being “blanked out” at the material time of the incident, 197 Foot Note 197 × NE 9 May 2025 at p 83 line 24 to p 84 line 5. a point also mentioned in her Trauma Narrative. 198 Foot Note 198 × Agreed Bundle at p 198. A salient issue, nevertheless, is the sufficiency of the evidence against DCC on each specific charge, a point to which I return to

in this judgment, at [144]. Anal penetration 95 C testified that, as part of the sexual assaults, DCC had not only penetrated her vaginally using his finger, but anally as well. While these alleged instances of anal penetration were not the subject matter of any charge preferred against DCC, it featured in C’s narration of how some of these incidents transpired: 199 Foot Note 199 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 34 line 17 to p 35 line 2. Q: So I will need you to describe again what happens when you are on the bed and he is on top of you? A: Okay. So first he would take off my shirt and then he would take off my pants and my underwear as well, and then he would start touching my chest area or sometimes kissing them. Then after he was done with whatever he was doing at my chest area he would sometimes put his fingers into my -- either my vagina or anus, but I believe most of the time it was my vagina, because the vagina is more to the front than the anus. And then afterwards he would insert his penis into my vagina. [emphasis added] 96 Similarly, in her KKH Report, C reported the following forms of penetration as having been inflicted on her by DCC: 200 Foot Note 200 × Agreed Bundle at p 13. According to the complainant, there was digital-vaginal, digital-anal, oral-vaginal, penile-vaginal, and penile-anal assault. There was no ejaculation. Digital-anal penetration 97 Over the course of C’s

testimony, two inconsistencies arose. First, C contradicted her initial evidence regarding digital-anal penetration in cross-examination a week later: 201 Foot Note 201 × NE 13 May 2025 at p 42 line 24 to p 43 line 5. Q:  So, [C], my question is -- and maybe we should have been clearer. So when sometimes [DCC], you say, would put his finger, right, inside you, let’s be clear. That would be inside your vagina? A: Yes. Q: And has he ever put his finger in your anus? A: I don’t think so. [emphasis added] 98 C was however not asked to explain this discrepancy. The Defence did not point this inconsistency out to her or ask her to clarify. In GII (at [40]−[42]), Sundaresh Menon CJ held that where a seeming inconsistency was not put to a witness during cross-examination, it was not open for the same party to then contend that the witness’ testimony should be rejected by reason of the said inconsistency. Instead, since the witness was not afforded the chance to provide an explanation, the court was entitled to consider all plausible possibilities for reconciling the alleged inconsistency. 99 In my view, C experienced difficulty of recall during her cross-examination, and it was clear on observation that the process was emotionally difficult for her. On a related note, C’s evidence was that she was confused as to her anus and vagina in the earlier years. 202 Foot Note 202 × NE 5 May

2025 at p 27 lines 11–19. While she was older by the time of the police report, this confusion in the earlier years could have affected her ability to recall the specificities of where or when this digital penetration had occurred. In my judgment, as she was not given any opportunity to explain, the single “I don’t think so” is not sufficient to cast doubt on her testimony. I disregard this discrepancy. Penile-anal penetration 100 A second area related to penile-anal penetration. I regard this issue differently from the issue of digital-anal penetration because defence counsel did cross-examine C on it. C’s evidence on how DCC would be positioned relative to her whenever anal penetration took place was as follows: 203 Foot Note 203 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 24 lines 3−7. Q: How would [DCC’s] position be in relation to you? A: [DCC’s] position would be, like, over me. Like a bit of a 90-degree angle. I’m not very sure how to describe it, but he would be in between my legs as well. 101 C confirmed that DCC’s position on the bed, relative to her, would be the same for both penile-vaginal and penile-anal penetration: 204 Foot Note 204 × Q: Okay. Even on those occasions when you felt -- you say you felt that his penis was in your anus, was your face also still facing upwards on the bed, right? A: Yes. Q: Okay. And that position remained unchanged throughout, whether you say his penis was

in your vagina or in your anus, correct? A: Yes. 102 The Defence pointed out that, if C was lying flat on her back with her legs on the bed, her anus would not be exposed, 205 Foot Note 205 × DCS at para 212. especially if DCC was positioned “over” C and between C’s legs, 206 Foot Note 206 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 24 lines 3−7. or at the very least, C’s legs would have to be significantly elevated while lying flat on her back in order for her anus to be exposed. C disagreed with the suggestion when it was put to her: 207 Foot Note 207 × NE 13 May 2025 at p 86 line 24 to p 87 line 5. Q:  The proposition is this. It is physically impossible for [DCC] to do so because of the position of the human body and the location of both your vagina and your anus in that position because you are facing upwards. You can either agree, disagree, or answer in any way you wish, okay, [C]. A: I disagree. 103 C was not able to articulate why she disagreed. C testified that, when she was “around six years old”, she could not tell whether the pain caused by penetration emanated from her vagina or anus because she “couldn’t tell which one it was at that point of time”. 208 Foot Note 208 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 27 lines 11–19. Her evidence was that the anal penetration only took place in the beginning, and “near the end” it was vaginal. Although she was sure DCC penetrated her vagina each time, she could not

recall the frequency with which he penetrated her anus. It was clear that C found it emotionally difficult to recall and to give evidence on the assaults on the stand. The use of dolls pursuant to a Defence request did not assist, because the dolls had no knees or muscles. C also found it emotionally difficult to look at the dolls. C’s conclusion that there had been anal penetration rested on an assumption: 209 Foot Note 209 × NE 13 May 2025 at p 43 line 25 to p 44 line 19. Q: And can you tell us the frequency of that, okay? That means -- tell us, is it, like, he would put his penis in your anus first and then the vagina, or just penis into your anus and – yeah, I’m going to stop there first. Is that the situation or what? Could you tell us? A: I’m not sure. Because I -- at the start I couldn’t tell which part was the anus and which part was the vagina. Q: But at some point in time you are -- you seemed to give us the impression that you could tell, right? A: Yes. Q: Could you tell us when was that? That means with reference to K2, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, right? When were you able to tell that “He is putting his penis into my anus”? A: I’m not sure. I just remember feeling like pain at the area that I excrete from sometimes, like poo. Q: Okay. So that would be your -- A: Anus. [emphasis added] 104 I find it unsatisfactory that her conclusion that there had been penile-anal

penetration rested on an assumption. This assumption related to an area of pain, rather than a recall of penile penetration. I also find it unsatisfactory that C was not re-examined on penile-anal penetration. There were a range of possibilities arising from her assumption, her answer that she was unsure when the anal penetration occurred, the 90-degree angle of DCC’s position, or even the physical flexibility that may be observed in very young children. The Prosecution’s position was that the charges do not allege anal penetration. Nevertheless, C’s evidence on anal penetration was part of her general narrative as to how a typical incident of sexual assault would transpire, and this narrative was the basis of charge A1. I take this into account in the analysis below, at [144]. C’s continued presence on the third floor after the First Family Meeting 105 The last category of the Defence’s contentions on the inconsistencies in C’s evidence relate to her conduct at the Residence after the First Family Meeting and before the Second Family Meeting. As recounted above at [19], after the First Family Meeting, it was decided that C was not to go to the third floor of the Residence, and that she was to remain on the first floor of the Residence to study and play, whereas DCC and ABR would remain on the third floor of the Residence. 210 Foot Note 210 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 30 lines 13–24;

NE 21 October 2025 at p 24 line 15 to p 25 line 3. However, C was bitten by mosquitos at the first floor, and decided to work in the master bedroom on the third floor instead: 211 Foot Note 211 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 32 line 2 to p 33 line 1. Q: Where in your aunt’s home will you do your homework after this [First Family Meeting]? A: At first I would do my homework around the first floor. So the dining area. […] Q: So do you always stay here at this table at [Exhibit] P13 to do your homework each day? A: No, because I’m very prone to mosquito bites, so I became very uncomfortable with mosquito bites. And to avoid this I went back up to level 3. Q: And where on level 3 did you do your work? A: I returned to my aunt’s bedroom and the small table in my aunt’s bedroom, because the L-shaped table was always -- usually occupied by [ABR] and [DCC]. Q: You told us earlier that [DCC] did acts to you within your aunt’s bedroom, so why would you go back to the same room? A: Because I was uncomfortable of the mosquito bites that I was receiving at the first floor. 106 The Defence submits that C’s version of events is “unbelievable”, and points to certain facets of C’s evidence in support of this submission. 212 Foot Note 212 × DCS at para 217. 107 First, C agreed that she was given instructions against going to the third floor of the Residence after the First Family Meeting: 213 Foot Note

213 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 23 lines 10–20. Q: Now, but we know that you told us that you then went back up to the third floor, correct? A: Yes. Q: You agree that that's disobeying the clear instructions from your parents, [AMR] and in front of [AGM] what was discussed at the first family meeting. It is disobeying their instructions, agree? A: Yes. Q: Did you seek permission first, before you went upstairs to the third floor? A: No. 108 Second, C agreed that she never complained about the mosquitos on the first floor of the Residence while she was told to remain there: 214 Foot Note 214 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 25 lines 1–16. Q: Did you tell anyone about the mosquito bites and so therefore, you want to go up back to the third floor? And I will be specific. Did you tell [AMR] about what you have just said? You get a lot of mosquito bites on the first floor, you get less on the third floor, so you want to go back up to the third floor. Did you tell [AMR] that? A: Can't remember. Q: Did you tell your mum that? A: I don't think so. Q: Did you tell your dad that? A: I don't think so. Q: Did you tell Grandma that? A: I don't think so. Q: Did you tell [FDH] that? A: I don't think so as well. 109 Third, C had acknowledged that there were areas in the Residence other than the master bedroom which had fewer mosquitos than the first floor: 215 Foot Note 215 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 25 line 17 to

p 26 line 23. Q: Now, you said a moment ago that you get lesser mosquito bites on the upper floors, correct? A: Yes. […] Q: So there are three other upper floors that you could choose to avoid [DCC] and to have less mosquito bites. That would be second floor and the attic, the second, third floor and then the attic. Correct? A: Yes. Q: Is it your evidence that of all the upper floors to avoid the mosquitoes, you only went to the third floor, again, after the first family meeting, in disobedience of the instructions given to you? A: Yes, I went to the third floor. 110 Relatedly, C was clear that she was discomforted by and had experienced pain during the sexual assaults: 216 Foot Note 216 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 17 lines 15 to p 18 line 2. Q: So what we have established is that you said that you felt pain before the first family meeting. You felt pain when [DCC] put his penis into your vagina, correct? A: Yes. Q: You say you would also feel pain if [DCC] put his penis into your anus before the first family meeting, correct? A: Yes. Q: You said you were not comfortable with these acts before the first family meeting, correct? A: Yes, I mentioned that. 111 Further, C confirmed that the frequency of sexual assaults had increased from once a week to around two to three times a week at the material time: 217 Foot Note 217 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 27 lines 14–25. Q: Now, we are now in the

scenario where you have gone back up to the third floor, and is your evidence that [DCC] continued his sexual acts? Correct? A: Yes. Q: Now, the frequency, you said, increased to two to three times a week. Correct? A: Yes. Q: And is it your evidence, having regard to the timing of the acts, you have said it's the same period of time, correct, between half an hour to an hour, thereabouts, based on your understanding. Correct? A: Yes. 112 C’s behaviour also was at odds with CMR’s testimony of CMR’s instruction. CMR stated that, after the First Family Meeting, she had told C to inform her if anyone touched her: 218 Foot Note 218 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 85 lines 1–4. A: I told her, if anything happen in [the Residence], you tell me. If anyone touch you, then correct it's not just stranger, it's family members touch you or even teachers touch you, you have to tell us. 113 Additionally, CMR testified that she had reminded FDH and SDH that C was not to go to the third floor of the Residence alone. 219 Foot Note 219 × CS of CMR at para 6, Agreed Bundle at p 1; NE 10 September 2025 at p 67 lines 3–24. CMR recalled that FDH, SDH and AMR had all called her to inform that C had gone to the third floor in contravention of her instructions. 220 Foot Note 220 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 67 line 25 to p 69 line 3. CMR stated that, during these calls, she would request that they pass the

phone to C. CMR would then ask C why she went to the third floor, to which C would reply that she wanted to study on the third floor as the first floor had “a lot of mosquitos” and the second floor had no table available for her use. 221 Foot Note 221 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 68 lines 8–23. CMR would then state that she was upset with C and that C had no reason to go to the third floor. 222 Foot Note 222 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 70 lines 3–22. According to CMR, C would then provide the following response: 223 Foot Note 223 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 82 line 17 to p 83 line 2. Q: You would tell her, I would imagine, that, "[C], don't go upstairs to the third floor"; correct? A: I asked her why she went upstairs. Q:  That's a more – A: Yes, correct. Q: But what was the concluding instructions, yet again? It would be? A: It would be that somebody is using the living room or there is pest control coming in or my -- there is tuition downstairs, so therefore she has to go to the third floor to study. 114 According to CMR, she had received such calls on “a few occasions”, 224 Foot Note 224 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 70 lines 14–15. though she estimated that this occurred “less than 10” times. 225 Foot Note 225 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 81 lines 10–25. During cross-examination, CMR agreed that these calls “strongly suggested” that her domestic helpers and AMR would report to

her every time they saw C on the third floor after the First Family Meeting. 226 Foot Note 226 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 82 lines 1–10. CMR also stated that, though she had told her domestic helpers that C was not to go to the third floor of the Residence alone, she was unsure if the domestic helpers had ensured this as they were busy with looking after CYR and CYT. 227 Foot Note 227 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 83 line 8 to p 84 line 6. C’s explanations 115 In sum, it is not disputed that C returned, of her own volition, to the third floor to study after the First Family Meeting. While there was a standing instruction that she ought to study on the ground floor, from CMR’s evidence as well as her own, she did not abide by this instruction. In my assessment of the Defence’s submission that her evidence is not credible, I am mindful of the observation in GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2018] 3 SLR 1048 at [20], that victims of sexual crimes cannot be straightjacketed in the expectation that they must act or react in a certain manner (see also GHI v Public Prosecutor [2024] 5 SLR 607 at [35]). Therefore, I focus on C’s explanation. The issue under consideration pertains to the particular victim and her specific reality. 116 Regarding the other rooms in the house, C testified that she did not go to the second floor as she did not want to disturb her brothers, who were

very young and would be napping in AGM’s room. 228 Foot Note 228 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 35 lines 19 to p 36 line 9; p 39 lines 15–24. C also testified that there was no space in the attic to study. 229 Foot Note 229 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 36 line 19 to p 37 line 4. 117 Regarding her continuing to go to the third floor, C explained in examination-in-chief that she tolerated the sexual acts because it was meant to be good for her: 230 Foot Note 230 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 36 lines 14–19. Q: Can you tell me how you felt at around this time when the incidents resumed even after the first family meeting? A: I believe I was okay with it. I mean, it was still uncomfortable, but because it is supposed to be good for me, so I just tolerated it. 118 Re-examined on the portion above, C testified that, at the material time, she was not actively trying to avoid being alone with DCC because she still did not understand that what DCC did to her was wrong: 231 Foot Note 231 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 132 line 22 to p 134 line 4. Q: Can you explain your answer? A: I wasn't trying -- sorry, I wasn't actively trying to avoid being alone with [DCC], because I still didn't understand that what he did to me was wrong. Q: So when you returned to [AMR’s] bedroom to continue doing homework there after the first family meeting, did [AMR] know about this, to your knowledge? A: Sorry, know about what? Q: About you

returning to her bedroom to do homework even after the first family meeting. A: I think so. Q: So we understand that the outcome of the first family meeting was that the adults had told you not to go up to the third floor but you still went to [AMR’s] bedroom after that, and then you've said that you think that [AMR] knows that you went back to her bedroom. Did no one tell you to – did anyone tell you not to be there? A: No. 119 C’s testimony was that she “did not know what [the sexual acts which DCC committed on her] [were] at the time”. 232 Foot Note 232 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 5 line 12 to p 6 line 9. Q: Okay. So you told us initially that you didn't know what [DCC] did to you was wrong. How did you realise later that it was wrong? A: Later on, after the second family meeting, I believe it was somewhere between P6 and Secondary 1, I read a news article about a lady getting raped, and I realised that it was quite similar to what I had experienced in my childhood. So then I went and searched Google on what it was, and I realised that what had happened in my childhood, in fact, like, was wrong, and it wasn't really rape. Sorry, it was rape, but, like, it wasn't what I thought it was. Q: Can you elaborate on your last statement when you said that “it wasn’t what I thought it was”? A: When I meant that it wasn't what I thought it was, I meant that, like, because I thought that what

[DCC] was doing to me was playing and it was not out of the ordinary because I had did that since I was extremely young, I thought, like, everyone does such things with either their cousins or, like, their friends. So when I read that it was actually rape, I faced some form of, like, denial at some point, but I came to realise that, yeah, it was rape. The familial factors relevant to the context of C’s explanations 120 The reasons C listed for continuing to study at the third floor after being told not to were, therefore: that she believed DCC when he told her the penetration was “good for her”; she was able to tolerate it; and that she did not know it was rape. These reasons must be examined in her specific familial context. 121 First, she and DCC were close. He was the cousin nearest in age to her, and they saw each other every weekday when they spent their afternoons at the Residence. He was “a sibling” to her (see [123] below), and was also four years older. For this reason, she explained with candid honesty that she did not understand the acts to be anything but innocent: 233 Foot Note 233 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 26 lines 2–21. Q: At this point in time, what was your understanding about sex? A:  I cannot remember, but I remember my mum telling me that if someone I didn't know touched me on my private parts, then I had to tell her. But in my eyes [DCC] was not someone who I

didn't know. Actually, he was not unfamiliar face at all, because I saw him throughout my childhood. Q: But at the time, what was your understanding of what [DCC] had done to you? A: I thought that he was just, like, touching me or playing with me. I didn't know it was anything out the ordinary; I just thought it was normal. 122 Second, she was extremely close to and trusted AMR and AGM. It is clear from the evidence that both AMR and AGM dismissed her views, and their doing so would have had significant impact on her, because of her close relationship with them. 123 She described her relationship with AMR, DCC and ABR as follows: 234 Foot Note 234 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 19 line 16 to p 20 line 1. Q: Now, when you were younger and still staying at your aunt's place during the day, how would you describe your relationship with your father's side of the family? A: I would describe our relationship as a close-knit family because I -- my siblings and I, we went there every day, so we were -- we talked to this side of the family every day and we were basically as good as siblings, and I personally saw [AMR] as my own -- sorry, not my own, like a second maternal figure to me. 124 Similarly, C testified that she was close to AGM: 235 Foot Note 235 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 20 lines 16–20. Q: And how would you describe your relationship with your grandmother? A: I would say my grandmother and

I were quite close as well. Sometimes I would help her with household chores. 125 This second factor was linked to a third, that both AMR and AGM had essentially brushed C’s complaints aside as lies. Upon hearing her complaint which led to the First Family Meeting, AMR had scolded C and told her not to lie: 236 Foot Note 236 × NE 13 May 2025 at p 126 lines 6–13. Q: When [AMR] is cooking you are telling her that [DCC] touched you. You can't recall what details you told her but minimally that [DCC] touched you. She scolded you and told you not to lie. This is while she was cooking? A: Yes. Q: Then you felt hurt. Correct? That's what you say? A: Yes. 126 In a similar vein, AGM had told C to tell everyone at the First Family Meeting that she had lied about DCC touching her: 237 Foot Note 237 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 30 line 25 to p 31 line 12. Q: Did your grandmother say anything to you? A: I believe she told me to tell everyone that I was lying about this. Q: How did you feel when your grandmother told you to tell others that you (inaudible)? A: I was personally a bit upset and I can't really understand also because I -- firstly I didn't know that what [DCC] was doing to me was wrong, and secondly, like, it's the truth. So I really didn't know, like, if it's the truth and -- sorry, if it's the truth and it was okay, like, why do I have to admit that I'm lying about something? Yeah, I

really couldn't understand it. 127 AGM was adamant under cross-examination that C was lying: 238 Foot Note 238 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 15 line 16 to p 16 line 4. Q: Okay. So we say that the second family meeting came about because [C] had again alleged that [DCC] had molested her? A: No, it did not happen. Q: We say that at this meeting she was also crying and she was gesturing at which part of her body she was being touched. Do you agree or disagree? A: I definitely disagree. She is lying. Q: Do you remember telling [C] that she was lying at these meetings? A: Yes. Q: So you told [C] to tell other adults that she was lying about what? A: She anyhow say. 128 AGM did not furnish any basis for her belief that C lied even when asked specifically at the end of her evidence: 239 Foot Note 239 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 18 lines 12−17. COURT:  I just have one question. [AGM], you remember telling [C] that she was lying at these meetings and you answered "Yes"? A:  Yes. COURT: How did you know that she was lying? A:  She will just anyhow say things. 129 Fourth, the two families were extremely close. 240 Foot Note 240 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 4 lines 1–16. AMR was CFR’s elder sister and had brought him up. 241 Foot Note 241 × NE 12 September 2025 at p 53 lines 8–11; NE 12 September 2025 at p 59 lines 20–23. AGM looked after C while CMR and CFR were at work, and CMR and CFR ate dinner

at the Residence every weekday evening. 242 Foot Note 242 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 76 lines 5–11. Even on Sunday nights, they got together with others within the extended family. In CMR’s words, AMR was “the best sister-in-law anybody could have”. 243 Foot Note 243 × NE 10 September 2025 at p 22 lines 7–8. AMR was a homemaker who ran and ordered matters at the Residence. In her words, arrangements were settled “all based on what I say”. 244 Foot Note 244 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 29 line 24 to p 30 line 2. 130 These factors accounted for C’s omission to raise an alarm. C explained that, up to the time she WhatsApp-ed CGF about DCC raping her, she had decided not to raise the matter again because of the relationships at stake: Q:  We are going to the messages. I turn you to page 112. I will be looking at messages from serial number 376 to about 383, between pages 112 and 113. You said at about serial number 376: "It's just hard to tell people. So I wld usually just kinda accept" And 380: "It's far easier than telling them". 382: "Like who goes around telling people HEY I'VE BEEN RAPED WHEN I WAS A CHILD". Now, what do you mean when you said that you would just kind of accept it, at 377? A:  I would just -- during this time I would just try to accept the fact that I'm not going to do anything about it. I was not going to do anything about the incidents where [DCC] raped me, and

I just wanted to leave it as it is. Because as I say just now, it was really hard for me to tell even my family about it because I felt very bad that it was just affecting everyone. 131 This context was reflected in C’s Trauma Narrative, which gave insight into her thinking: Chapter 3 My growing up years Since I was little, my 1st aunt took care of me. My parents were working and she is a housewife. My parents would send me to their house everyday and my 1st aunt and grandma would take care of me. I think she was quite motherly, she used to bring me out for lunch daily and she is kinda of like a 2nd mother to me. She has 2 children, [ABR] (6 years my senior) and [DCC] (4 years my senior). We grew up together as a family unit. I was also close to my grandma, I would sometimes sleep with her and help her out with the chores. I don’t really remember my parents during my growing up years. During the weekdays, we would only go back home to sleep. We would only spend weekends together and we still got to meet relatives on those days. As such, the memories with my parents were quite faint. School was also uneventful. 132 C’s normalisation of the sexual incidents within this familial context was reflected in her Trauma Narrative. After the First Family Meeting, she recounted: 245 Foot Note 245 × Agreed Bundle at p 200, Chapter 6. Chapter 6 My first reveal … My parents took it that

[DCC] accidentally touched me and ignore the incident. I thought to myself that it is probably normal since they were okay with it. I wasn’t angry or sad that nobody helped me, I just kept thinking it was a normal act. They told me to stay at level 1 because there’s a lot of mosquitoes. I went back to my aunt room, he started doing it again and he said to me “you better not tell anyone”. 133 This normalisation is also reflected in her characterisation of the period between the First and Second Family Meetings: Chapter 7: it became worse He started doing up to 2 to 3 times a week. He start to get me to kiss him as well. By that time, I didn’t think much of it. It became part of my life. There was this one time, my brother saw [DCC] touching me. We were watching YouTube on my aunt’s ipad and sitting side by side. My legs were blocking the ipad, and told me to move away. [DCC] said move away and hit my inner thighs. My brother and I told my parents, but they thought were an accident and took it as a small matter. I was upset this time. I kept quiet and after awhile, I got used to being ignore. I guess being ignored is normal, no help is given to me. I felt helpless, I think nobody would help me because they won’t believe what I say. I did think my brother would believe me, but he was too young. The feeling helplessness is hurtful, it feels like I have very little protection. I

remembered that when I don’t do homework, my mum would threaten to send me to child care. I was told that childcare gives kids the same food and it is a really bad place. So I thought I should keep quiet so that I can continue to stay at the house. [emphasis added] 134 Defence counsel cross-examined C at length on the thigh incident. 246 Foot Note 246 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 55 line 5 In brief, C maintained that DCC had hit her inner thigh as described in her Trauma Narrative, 247 Foot Note 247 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 61 line 8 to p 62 line 11. and that this had occurred after the First Family Meeting. 248 Foot Note 248 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 58 line 22. C recalled that she reported this hitting of her inner thigh to her parents. 249 Foot Note 249 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 65 lines 3−12. C could not recall the exact words she used when she reported this, but agreed that she did not say that she was “touched”. 250 Foot Note 250 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 65 line 25 to p 66 line 11. When asked why C reported this incident to her parents, C stated that “it was embarrassing” because CYR had witnessed this specific incident. 251 Foot Note 251 × NE 14 May 2025 at p 65 lines 12−25. 135 In my view, while the slapping on the thigh was not a sexual assault, it was intimate and disrespectful, which was clear even to her younger brother who supported her in her report of it. Her evidence that she was

embarrassed by this public display of disdain for her bodily autonomy on her cousin’s part in front of her brother is believable. The feeling of being “helpless” which she associated with this incident is also believable. This same helplessness is reflected in Chapter 8 in her characterisation of the Second Family Meeting: Chapter 8 The 2nd report At 11 years old, I told another helper. I was close to her and I decided to tell her because I really needed someone to talk to. I told her that [DCC] touched me but I didn’t tell her about the sex. She thought it was touching and she told me to tell my aunt. I went to tell my aunt that [DCC] touched me, she was angry at me and again told me not to lie of this type of serious matter. I didn’t cry, I was used to it. My parents came over for dinner, and there was this talk in my grandma’s bedroom. We were all in it with [DCC]. He kept denying. At that point, they still thought it was touching. My parents said all 3 of us are going to move back home for good. At the point of time, I also didn’t want to move back to my own house because I have grown up in this house. My grandma said to me to not break the family apart and my brothers would also not be able to stay in my aunt’s house any more. One of my brother is my grandma’s favourite child. So she told me to tell everyone that it is all a lie. I felt so wronged. They didn’t treat it

seriously, I felt like none of them believed me. At the same time, I felt really bad. My grandma used to ask me if I will take care of my aunt when she gets old. I always said yes. I felt like I am now biting the hands that feed me. I went home, nothing happened at home. We didn’t go to child care, my helper takes care of us. I still didn’t think they believe me at that time. They didn’t seem to treat the thing seriously. I didn’t know what to expect but we still over to their house over the weekends for visit. I felt weird going over to their house on the weekend and felt very awkward. I didn’t mention it anyone. [emphasis added] 136 Pulling the threads together, it was CMR’s evidence that C continued to go to the third floor to study. CMR testified after C and so there was no opportunity to question C on it. In any event, C’s view was that AMR knew that she had returned to the third floor. 252 Foot Note 252 × NE 15 May 2025 at p 134 line 20. That CMR was unable to deter C from going to the third floor reflected their lack of a close relationship where problems could be resolved with communication and joint problem-solving. In my view, C’s continuing to go to the third floor in these circumstances did not reflect defiance, as defence counsel suggested, but a common response of children to rules that they do not understand as meaningful or rules that are not strictly enforced.

C similarly did not follow through on AGM’s instruction after the First Family Meeting for her to tell the whole family that she was lying. At the same time, C was deeply trusting of DCC, AMR and AGM. Fundamental to this is her lack of understanding at the material time that what was happening was rape. Her going to the third floor despite the incidents could be rationalised by her close relationship with DCC, and her deep trust in AMR and AGM. She had no reason to surmise that DCC would deeply harm her, or that AMR or AGM would brush aside a situation that was dangerous to her. Within her childish context, the pain of mosquito bites would be constant, and the continued itch could well be unbearable. While the sexual incidents were twice or three times a week, she was used to that particular form of pain, which she testified that she found tolerable over time. In her naïve mind, being sent to childcare and having to eat the food served there posed a greater terror. Her false thinking was explained by her age, particular experiences and familial circumstances. These same factors also explained, and were fully consistent with, her late realisation and late reporting. 137 In the light of the overall context, C’s behaviour was consistent with her familial circumstances and character. Was C unusually convincing? 138 The above analysis forms the heart of the answer as to whether C

was unusually convincing. The unusually convincing standard is a stringent one, requiring a complainant to be “so convincing that the Prosecution’s case was proven beyond reasonable doubt solely on the basis of her evidence”: see Mohammed Liton at [38], citing Teo Keng Pong v Public Prosecutor [1996] 2 SLR(R) 890 at [73]. Any doubt must be resolved in favour of the Defence. 139 At the same time, a case such as the present calls for a close assessment of the particular child, with her particular daily circumstances, her own development and awareness, and her specific familial and parental context. Children exist on a wide spectrum of maturity, intelligence, practical awareness and resilience to pain. In GCK, Menon CJ observed at [97]: … the evidence of children should not be assessed from the perspective of stereotypes, but on a common sense basis. Each child witness, regardless of his or her age, should have his or her credibility and evidence assessed by reference to criteria appropriate to his or her mental development, understanding and ability to communicate. 140 In this context, I consider the whole of C’s conduct over the years from her first complaint up to the time of the police report. The Defence’s submissions focus very substantially on how these events were not corroboration. 253 Foot Note 253 × DCS at paras 21 – 146. Nevertheless, the various events are still

relevant under ss 9, 11 and 14 of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “EA”) in reflecting either a consistent or inconsistent course of conduct and explaining C’s thinking and approach. C’s complaint that led to the First Family Meeting occurred prior to charges A1−A3. While it is less relevant in probative value in respect of a specific offence, it explains C’s subsequent thinking. While the Second Family Meeting was on the same day as the incident underlying charge A2 and came within the timeframe envisaged by s 159 of the EA, the section contemplates a former statement “relating to the same fact”. It therefore has little corroborative weight. Nonetheless, C’s hand gestures, as reflected in the testimony of her parents, are consistent with her age at the time of the reporting and her evidence on the stand as to her understanding. C’s later complaints − in the Laptop Incident, her WhatsApp conversations with CGF, and her reporting to her parents on or around 29 September 2020 – are outside the window of s 159 of the EA. Nevertheless, the absence of corroboration is not fatal. The unusually convincing standard is premised on the absence of corroboration. Evidence that is not corroborative remains relevant and must be considered in the context of the question of whether the whole of C’s conduct forms part of a context that is consistent. I have held at [120]–[137] that her

familial context explained how the assaults continued. C’s reaction on her 12th birthday and her subsequent reports and conduct thereafter, viewed in the round, give texture to her consistency and reflect a child finally finding the courage to speak for herself. 141 Returning to the medical evidence, while I hold that the symptoms of PTSD cannot amount to independent corroboration, as I observed above at [54], these symptoms were not inconsistent with the assaults having taken place. Again, the absence of corroboration is not fatal. It is material and unreconciled inconsistency that is fatal. I view the gynaecological evidence similarly. Dr Li 254 Foot Note 254 × ASOF at para 13. examined C on 3 February 2021. 255 Foot Note 255 × Agreed Bundle at pp 11−14. Her KKH Report noted old tears at the three and eight o’clock positions of C’s hymenal ring, but no fresh tears or bleeding. 256 Foot Note 256 × Agreed Bundle at p 13. Dr Li explained that tearing between the three and nine o’clock positions of the hymenal ring was “suggestive of possible penetration”. 257 Foot Note 257 × NE 9 September 2025 at p 17 line 19 to p 20 line 22. Dr Li explained her conclusion as such: 258 Foot Note 258 × NE 9 September 2025 at p 18 lines 2−11. A: This is because if, let's say, there is penetration of the -- penetration into the vagina, the penetrating object would follow the path of the vaginal

canal, which is generally in the downward and inward position. So by going by the path of least resistance, the object would be then -- the friction or the injury or the tear would then be more evident in the posterior half of the hymenal ring, because anteriorly, the urethra, the ring hole, would be blocking it in a sense. 142 As C was not examined within 72 hours of the alleged penetration, Dr Li was unable to testify as to the age of the tears. 259 Foot Note 259 × NE 9 September 2025 at p 28 line 15 to p 29 line 14. Arising from this, Dr Li’s evidence is not definitive as to whether penile-vaginal penetration had occurred. 260 Foot Note 260 × Agreed Bundle at p 30. It is, nevertheless, not inconsistent with C’s evidence. 143 Having considered the whole of the evidence, I find C’s evidence on her reasons, context and conduct convincing and compelling. In doing so, I clarify that I do not take into account the Prosecution’s submission that C had no motive to lie. The absence of a proven motive is in itself insufficient to render a complainant’s testimony unusually convincing and thereby establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: see Yue Roger Jr at [50]. Charge A1 144 I turn then to the specific charges, as each charge must be proved on its own merits. The Prosecution’s case for charge A1 relies on C’s evidence as to a general course of conduct. In this context, the general

course of conduct includes anal penetration on occasion, and the issue of anal penetration is not well explained. I pointed out these aspects at [100]–[104]. While the Prosecution points out that anal penetration is not alleged within A1, it was not clear whether anal penetration was said to have occurred during the specific incident that is the subject matter of A1. C did not particularise a specific incident said to have given rise to charge A1. While I accept she was a truthful witness, I am concerned with the sufficiency of detail on A1. I find it unsafe to hold that the Prosecution has met its burden of proof on this charge. Charge A3 145 Charge A3, in contrast, carried specificity. Its details, and C’s reaction, were unique and consistent with her confusion and naïveté. For the reasons that I detail at [81]–[92] and [120]–[143], I am of the view that her evidence on this charge is unusually convincing. Charge A2 146 Charge A2 was a further specific incident. This happened prior to DCC’s tuition session, and on the same afternoon as C’s report to AMR that led to the Second Family Meeting. C recalled that DCC penetrated her vagina and touched her breasts. In contrast to A1, her evidence on this charge is not tainted by her confusion in relation to anal penetration, as anal penetration was not alleged in this instance. She recalled that after the Zip-lock Bag Incident, the

incidents involved kissing and touching of her breasts and penetration of her vagina with his penis. 261 Foot Note 261 × NE 5 May 2025 at p 39 lines 8–10. Her evidence of this incident recalled the intrusion of breasts and vagina only. Further, this charge concerns the last instance of rape and C was clear that “closer to the end it was the vagina”. 262 Foot Note 262 × NE 13 May 2025 at p 43 line 18. The Second Family Meeting stemmed from this incident, even though the report C made is of limited value as corroboration because C was unable to specify the assault with particularity. For the reasons highlighted at [120]–[143], I find C’s evidence unusually convincing on charge A2. 147 With this in mind, I address the second angle mentioned in GII and review whether the Defence has raised a reasonable doubt on the totality of the evidence. Case mounted by the Defence 148 The Defence’s case was premised on the consistency of DCC’s denials, and multiple implausibility arguments. I address these in turn. Consistency of DCC’s denials 149 The Defence submits that DCC was “remarkably consistent in denying any allegation of wrongdoing” at the First Family Meeting, the Second Family Meeting, in his Video-Recorded Interview (“VRI Statement”) with the police on 4 January 2021, and in his testimony in court. 263 Foot Note 263 × DCS at paras 248−249. This consistent denial was relied upon in

written submissions as “a striking feature of the present case” which “lends an air of credibility” to DCC’s testimony. 264 Foot Note 264 × DCS at para 252. 150 In my judgment, the repetition of a denial cannot imbue it with probative force. Previous consistent statements cannot prove a statement to be true; nor can mere repetition render a witness credible. 151 Relatedly, I make a point about DCC’s denials. I pause to note the extreme nature of DCC’s denial at the Second Family Meeting. On DCC’s own evidence, when he was confronted with the allegation that he had touched C at the Second Family Meeting, he responded with, “I will jump down the building to prove my innocence”. 265 Foot Note 265 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 29 lines 13−15. When questioned on why he would say such a thing, DCC explained as follows: 266 Foot Note 266 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 29 lines 17−21. A: Because when I was younger, I always watch movie shows and in those shows they always use death as a way to prove their love or their innocence. So I thought I will just do the same thing to prove my own innocence, yes. 152 In my view, the offer to commit suicide is extraordinary as a response to C’s opaque and unclear complaint. However, DCC’s view of the Second Family Meeting was that it was heated and that CFR was not giving him an opportunity to speak. DCC could be given the benefit of the doubt as an

exasperated 15-year-old. Nevertheless, I agree with the Prosecution’s submission that DCC’s response is incongruous with his defence at trial. At trial, DCC raised, for the first time, that he did not, over the course of the many years, have any opportunity to be alone with C. If this were the case, it would have been a natural and easy response for DCC to say at the Second Family Meeting that there had been no opportunity to be alone with C on any recent date. Under cross-examination, DCC agreed that he did not raise this lack of opportunity at the First Family Meeting, 267 Foot Note 267 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 99 lines 11−18; NE 15 October 2025 at p 45 lines 10−15. the Second Family Meeting, 268 Foot Note 268 × NE 15 October 2025 at p 45 lines 16−24. and during the recording of his VRI Statement. 269 Foot Note 269 × Exhibit P88T (Transcript for the video-recorded interview of DCC under s 22 of the CPC on 4 January 2021). 153 In this context, I turn to the multiple implausibility arguments made. The Defence’s implausibility arguments 154 The remaining two of the eleven contentions made by the Defence on C’s evidence in its written submissions relate to implausibility. Implausibility because the door could not be locked 155 As recounted above at [10], it was C’s evidence that, as a prelude to a typical incident of sexual assault, DCC would first close and lock the master

bedroom door. The Defence asserts that C’s testimony on this point is implausible, as: 270 Foot Note 270 × DCS at para 240. (a) There were house rules in place which prohibited the children in the Residence from locking doors; and (b) In any event, the door to the master bedroom was defective and could not be properly locked. 156 The Defence submits that DCC, ABR and AMR “all unanimously testified that there was a house rule that doors could not be locked”. 271 Foot Note 271 × DCS at para 241. The Defence also points to AMR’s testimony that she would enforce her house rules and discipline the children if they disobeyed. 272 Foot Note 272 × DCS at para 241. Conversely, C stated that the only clear house rule was not to place bags on AMR’s bed, 273 Foot Note 273 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 70 lines 2−10. and that it was permissible to close and lock doors in the Residence. 274 Foot Note 274 × NE 13 May 2025 at p 16 line 13 to p 20 line 12. 157 One would expect that if clear house rules were in place, these would be understood in the same way by DCC, ABR and AMR. The evidence provided by the Defence’s witnesses on the house rules varied save for their insistence that doors could not be locked: (a) According to DCC, the house rules prohibited the closing and locking of doors, the use of air-conditioning in the day, and specific to him, the use of the computer in the Residence. 275 Foot

Note 275 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 15 line 15 to p 16 line 9. (b) According to ABR, the house rules prohibited the slamming of doors and the locking of doors, and required permission to be granted for the use of air-conditioning in the day. 276 Foot Note 276 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 13 lines 14−18. (c) According to AMR, the house rules prohibited the closing and locking of doors, the use of air-conditioning in the day, the use of mobile phones till 8pm, 277 Foot Note 277 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 12 line 22 to p 13 line 8. and the use of the iPad or television in the day. 278 Foot Note 278 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 69 lines 11−20. 158 These variations were not major. Tellingly, however, ABR was explicitly asked to clarify if there was a house rule prohibiting the closing of doors, to which ABR confirmed that he could not recall such a rule: 279 Foot Note 279 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 51 lines 14−22. Q: There is no house rule that you cannot close any door in your house, do you agree or disagree with that? A:  I do not recall. COURT: What do you not recall, ABR? A:  My mum would – COURT: What is it that you don’t recall? A: I don’t recall there being any rule about this, but my mum did express her dislike for us leaving the door closed. 159 Aside from the content of the house rules, there was also inconsistencies between the Defence’s witnesses as to the enforcement of the

same. DCC testified that AMR was “very strict with her rules”, 280 Foot Note 280 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 6 line 7. and that the consequence of breaking a house rule was being “scolded by both my parents”. 281 Foot Note 281 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 40 line 22 to p 41 line 1. ABR also testified that the consequence of breaking any house rule was being “harshly scolded” by AMR. 282 Foot Note 282 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 13 line 23 to p 14 line 2. At trial, AMR described herself as a “tiger mum”. 283 Foot Note 283 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 12 line 9. However, AMR also stated that, from 2013 to 2018, she was not aware of a single occasion where the children would watch television in contravention of the house rules as construed by her. 284 Foot Note 284 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 70 lines 11−20. This is contradicted by AMR’s own statement to the police, in which she recounted an incident where C was in the master bedroom watching television with DCC. 285 Foot Note 285 × NE 22 October 2025 at p 18 line 3 to p 20 line 11. 160 Plainly, and as pointed out by the Prosecution, if it were true that there were clear and unequivocal house rules which were strictly enforced, these house rules would have been something that the Defence’s witnesses would have given a consistent account of. However, this was not so and, accordingly, I disbelieve DCC’s assertion that there were clear house

rules. 161 I similarly disbelieve the Defence’s assertion that the master bedroom door was defective. The evidence provided by the Defence’s witnesses on the functionality of the door is materially inconsistent with one another. I summarise the differing and fluid accounts below: (a) DCC initially stated that, since he never locked the master bedroom door, he did not know if it could be locked. 286 Foot Note 286 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 13 lines 21−25. When asked whether this state of knowledge persists to-date, DCC stated that he continued not to know, 287 Foot Note 287 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 89 lines 2 −10. only to then state that he in fact knew that the door could be locked. 288 Foot Note 288 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 89 line 17 to p 90 line 17. (b) ABR stated that the master bedroom door could be closed only if it is locked. 289 Foot Note 289 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 51 lines 1−13. To lock the door, one would have to “push the door in completely, and then […] lift up the handle at a certain degree and then the – that thing in the door will align with the hole in the wall”. 290 Foot Note 290 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 12 lines 1−17. It “could take about a minute to completely close” the door. 291 Foot Note 291 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 12 line 22 to p 13 line 1. 162 AMR gave inconsistent evidence on the lock. In her police statement, AMR inserted a handwritten paragraph

which read “I wish to add that the lock for my master bedroom door is spoilt and cannot be locked. I wonder why [C] mention [sic] that [DCC] locks the door?”. 292 Foot Note 292 × NE 22 October 2025 at p 23 lines 1−7. While she posed the query in her police statement, her cross-examination revealed that she knew of C’s position that the door was locked: 293 Foot Note 293 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 112 line 8 to p 113 line 2. Q: Okay, and she also did not tell you that [DCC] locked your room door, is that your evidence? A: [DCC] locked the room door? Q: Yes. Did [C] tell you that? A: They did tell me that. Q: So [C] told you that [DCC] locked the room door and that -- did you with say didn’t or did, [AMR]? What is your answer? Did [C] tell you that [DCC] locked the room door? A: She did tell me that [DCC] locked the room door. 163 More importantly, when cross-examined, AMR stated that, from 2013 to 2018, the master bedroom door could be locked “with effort”. 294 Foot Note 294 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 41 lines 4−25. Subsequently, AMR stated that the lock worked intermittently or, in her words, “sometimes can lock, sometimes cannot lock”. 295 Foot Note 295 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 42 lines 1−5. She equivocated as follows: 296 Foot Note 296 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 41 line 20 to p 42 line 5. Q: No, I am asking you that you knew all along from 2013 to 2018 that the door could be

locked, your knowledge? Do you understand my question? A: Yes. Q: Okay. So could we have your answer, please? A: Yes. Q: What is your answer? Yes, you knew all along? A: Yes, I knew all along it could be locked, but I already told you that the lock is sometimes can lock, sometimes cannot lock. So all along I cannot tell you 100% the door could be locked. When asked again about the lock the next day, AMR replied that “the door actually cannot be locked. Only I know how to do it. The adult know how to do it”. 297 Foot Note 297 × NE 22 October 2025 at p 24 lines 23−25. She was not re-examined on these various iterations. 164 Having considered the totality of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the master bedroom door could be locked throughout 2013 to 2018, and the Defence’s implausibility arguments premised on this point must fail. Implausibility because of lack of opportunity 165 The Defence asserts that C’s evidence is implausible given the circumstances at the Residence on weekdays between 2013 and 2018, namely: 298 Foot Note 298 × DCS at para 226. (a) That DCC had tuition every weekday which would last till dinnertime. 299 Foot Note 299 × DCS at para 226(b). (b) That other persons at the Residence would be on the third floor of the Residence, where the master bedroom is located. 300 Foot Note 300 × DCS at para 228. I deal with these two assertions in turn. (1) Lack of

time spent together 166 The upshot of DCC’s evidence was that, from 2013 till 2018, he had no opportunity to be alone with C. To that end, DCC claimed that, on a typical weekday afternoon, the following sequence of events would occur. 301 Foot Note 301 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 18 line 5 to p 21 line 25. First, AMR would fetch him, ABR and C from school. Then, all of them would go to VivoCity to have lunch and buy groceries. Thereafter, they would return to the Residence, where he would shower and then have tuition, which started at 3.30pm. When tuition ended at 5.30pm, he would immediately go to the first floor to have dinner. When DCC started to attend Secondary School, this sequence of events remained the same, save for Wednesdays and Fridays when he had CCA in school till 6.30pm. 302 Foot Note 302 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 46 lines 4−25. 167 The Defence’s witnesses provided contradictory accounts on the frequency of DCC’s tuition: (a) DCC stated that when he was in Primary School (from 2013 to 2015), he had tuition at the Residence every day which would last up till dinnertime. 303 Foot Note 303 × DCS at para 226(b); NE 14 October p 21 lines 2−25. On school holidays, DCC stated that he would have “more tuition”. 304 Foot Note 304 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 78 lines 1−11. DCC also stated that, when he was in Secondary School (from 2016 to 2018), he had CCA twice every week

and tuition at the Residence on the remaining three weekdays. 305 Foot Note 305 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 24 lines 16−25. However, when cross-examining C, defence counsel stated that “my instructions are that there were days that there were tuition and there were days that there was no tuition”. 306 Foot Note 306 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 51 lines 16−24. Crucially, when this discrepancy was pointed out to DCC, he could not offer any explanation. 307 Foot Note 307 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 81 line 25 to p 82 line 24. (b) AGM stated that, from 2013 to 2018, DCC would have tuition “three times a week”. 308 Foot Note 308 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 6 line 21 to p 7 line 6. 168 Additionally, it was DCC’s evidence that tuition usually started at 3.30pm on weekday afternoons and would last for 1.5 hours to 2 hours. 309 Foot Note 309 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 18 line 18 to p 21 line 18. It was also DCC’s evidence that “usually straight after tuition I will have dinner”. 310 Foot Note 310 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 21 line 17. Chronologically, this would correspond with a dinnertime of either 5pm or 5.30pm. However, the Defence’s witnesses provided contradictory accounts as to what time dinner typically was: (a) When cross-examining C, defence counsel stated that “[d]inner, my instructions are usually maybe 6’oclock onwards”. 311 Foot Note 311 × NE 8 May 2025 at p 50 lines 21−24. (b) AMR had

initially stated that dinnertime was 5.30pm. 312 Foot Note 312 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 63 lines 7−9. Under cross-examination, prior instructions to defence counsel (that dinner was “maybe 6’oclock onwards”) were brought to AMR’s attention and, when asked if she agreed with this set of instructions, AMR responded with “Yes, I say maybe 6’oclock onwards”. 313 Foot Note 313 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 64 line 18 to p 65 line 1. 169 ABR, too, asserted that, from 2013 to 2018, DCC and C would never be alone together in the master bedroom in the afternoon. 314 Foot Note 314 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 40 line 22 to p 41 line 1. His evidence was internally inconsistent. On ABR’s own evidence, he had tuition from 5.30pm to 7.30pm at least four times a week, 315 Foot Note 315 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 47 lines 11−19. and would remain in school till 6pm for CCA every Friday. 316 Foot Note 316 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 75 line 13 to p 76 line 20. Yet ABR refused to concede that he would have no personal knowledge as to DCC’s whereabouts when he had tuition. 317 Foot Note 317 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 47 line 20 to p 50 line 14. Although ABR did agree, under cross-examination, that he would not have personal knowledge on the goings-on at the Residence while he was at CCA, 318 Foot Note 318 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 50 lines 15−20. he was content to subsequently and repeatedly assert that

“there was never an instance” where DCC and C would be alone in the master bedroom in the afternoon on weekdays. 319 Foot Note 319 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 72 lines 1−7. In my view, ABR was not a reliable witness. 170 Taken together, I find that the conflicting accounts provided by the Defence’s witnesses on the frequency of DCC’s tuition and when dinnertime typically was (which goes towards the duration and timing of DCC’s purported tuition, since DCC asserts that he had dinner immediately after tuition) cannot be said to contradict C’s evidence. I also note that the Defence has not adduced any independent evidence to support the existence of such a rigorous tuition or CCA schedule. 171 DCC’s cross-examination also reflected how untenable his assertion was. I reproduce a portion of DCC’s testimony on how he would spend time at the Residence if he did not have lunch at VivoCity, which starts with how rare such occasions were, followed by how long he took with his lunch, and ends with a rather surprising allusion to rushing his homework in the toilet: 320 Foot Note 320 × NE 15 October 2025 at p 34 line 23 to p 35 line 21. Q: Lunch at home. Yes, lunch at home. So are there days where you had tuition but you did not go to VivoCity and you did not have lunch outside? You had lunch at home? A: So for that one, firstly, it is very rare because almost all the time we go to VivoCity,

and why I say that there would not be pockets of time is because if I had lunch at home, I would eat for a really long time and then after lunch, I still need to shower which I usually take like 30 minutes to shower, and then after that before tuition, I need to rush my tuition work so that there wouldn’t be time for me to do any -- there would not be pockets of time. Q: Okay, you said that you need to rush your tuition work, correct? Where would you be rushing your tuition work? A: The common toilet, level 3. Q: No, my question, [DCC], is you said that you need to rush your tuition work, correct? “Before tuition I need to rush my tuition work”. A: Yes. Q: Where did you do -- A: At the toilet. Q: You did your tuition work inside the toilet? A: Inside the toilet. [emphasis added] 172 Further, DCC’s evidence that he would never be alone with C was contradicted by other Defence witnesses. AMR accepted that there were days when she would first drop off C and DCC at home together before she fetched ABR. 321 Foot Note 321 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 56 lines 6−16. I have dealt with ABR’s and AGM’s evidence at [169] and at [167(b)] respectively. (2) Presence of others at the residence 173 I similarly disbelieve the Defence’s assertion that other persons in the Residence would be on the third floor, with the effect of depriving DCC of the opportunity to sexually assault C. 174 At face

value, ABR’s testimony provided the most support to the Defence’s assertion on this point. Indeed, ABR testified that he would be on the third floor on weekday afternoons, 322 Foot Note 322 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 24 lines 11−18. studying at the L-shaped table. 323 Foot Note 323 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 4 lines 17−24. To that end, ABR agreed that he would be able to know who would be on the third floor. 324 Foot Note 324 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 60 lines 23−25; DCS at para 228. Despite this, ABR testified that he was “not too sure” where C would study both before and after the First Family Meeting. 325 Foot Note 325 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 59 line 8 to p 60 line 4. For reference, it was DCC’s evidence that C would study on the third floor before the First Family Meeting. 326 Foot Note 326 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 74 lines 7−15. Thus, ABR’s assertion that ABR was “always upstairs studying” is internally inconsistent and cannot be relevant to an analysis of C’s evidence. 327 Foot Note 327 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 24 lines 15−16. 175 The Defence also pointed to the testimony of AMR and AGM. In essence, AMR testified that, though she was usually pre-occupied with preparing dinner in the kitchen on weekday afternoons, she would occasionally go to the third floor to rest or check if her children were doing their homework. 328 Foot Note 328 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 76 line 12

to p 77 line 24. C was confined to the second floor for work and, if C went upstairs, it was with her. 329 Foot Note 329 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 35 lines 1–22. AGM, on her part, said that on weekday afternoons, she would usually be on the second floor taking care of CYT and CYR, 330 Foot Note 330 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 12 line 4 to p 13 line 12. though “sometimes [she] [would] go up to water [her] plants”. 331 Foot Note 331 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 5 lines 7−22. This point about AGM watering plants was not put to C. It was also clear from the evidence that AMR was often out of the house or cooking in the kitchen. No specific occasion of AMR going upstairs with C or AGM meeting C upstairs was put to C. There is therefore no merit in the assertion that at all times, there were others on the third level such that DCC would not have had an opportunity to assault C. Additional implausibility arguments 176 Aside from the implausibility arguments raised by the Defence in its closing submissions, DCC raised other additional implausibility arguments while on the stand. 177 First, he attempted to distance himself from C, saying in his examination-in-chief that his relationship with C “wasn’t very good”. 332 Foot Note 332 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 7 lines 11−17. Similarly, under cross-examination, DCC stated that he did not consider himself close to C when growing up, 333 Foot Note

333 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 65 lines 9−17. and denied that he had ever played with C when there were no adults present. 334 Foot Note 334 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 66 lines 5−14. This was contradicted by his VRI Statement recorded by the police, where he describes how “[they] were very close”: 335 Foot Note 335 × Exhibit P88T at p 26. So we were very close, closely. Physically very close because we played a lot of stuff together ‘la’, like all the card games, beyblade, phone game, watch TV, all that together. 178 DCC gave similar evidence when he was asked, in his VRI Statement, to recount the last time he met C: 336 Foot Note 336 × Exhibit P88T at pp 41−42. ‘Oh’ we were actually…’ya’ the thing I said, we’re close, right? That’s why I was shocked cause we were totally fine. She play her game, I play my game, and we are teammates. We help each other. […] 179 DCC’s assertion on the stand that he was not close to C at the material time was also contradicted by: (a)  ABR’s evidence that, before 2013, the cousins “share[d] a very close bond because after school they would usually come over”, 337 Foot Note 337 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 2 line 24 to p 3 line 5. that relations were “as equally close for me and my cousins and well as [DCC] and the cousins as well”, 338 Foot Note 338 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 3 lines 6−12. and that it was “quite upsetting to see” that “[C’s family]

didn’t really come over any more”; 339 Foot Note 339 × NE 16 October 2025 at p 22 lines 10−17. (b) AMR’s police statement, in which she stated that DCC and C were quite close with each other, 340 Foot Note 340 × Exhibit P90 (Statement Recorded from AMR on 4 January 2021) at A9. and her statement in court that C and DCC did “play together”; 341 Foot Note 341 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 4 line 18 to p 5 line 1. and (c) AGM’s evidence in court that C and DCC “played together when they were young”. 342 Foot Note 342 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 18 line 6. 180 A final implausibility contention was that DCC was too small to have carried or lifted C. 343 Foot Note 343 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 32 lines 11−22. DCC was four years older than C. From the photographs, it is clear that he was of a height and size consonant with his age – a stocky, healthy boy – and she was of a height and size consonant with hers. On the evidence before the court, there is no basis for such an allegation. 181 Arising out of the conclusions I make in response to DCC’s assertions, I hold that DCC is not a credible witness. Are there any Lucas lies? 182 Regarding DCC’s assertions, the Prosecution submits that three in particular are corroborative of guilt (referred to in the case law and therefore this judgment as “Lucas lies”), namely: (a) That he did not have a close relationship with C from 2013 to

2018; 344 Foot Note 344 × PCS at para 80. (b) That he had no opportunity to be alone with C from 2013 to 2018 on weekday afternoons; 345 Foot Note 345 × PCS at para 86. and (c) That he had not been alone with C in the master bedroom from 2013 to 2018 on weekday afternoons. 346 Foot Note 346 × PCS at para 91. 183 In Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) at [60], the Court of Appeal explained that Lucas lies have four requirements: (a) the lie told out of court was deliberate; (b) it related to a material issue; (c) the motive for the lie was a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth; and (d) the statement was clearly shown to be a lie by independent evidence. 184 I do not accept the Prosecution’s submission on the Lucas lies as there is no independent evidence regarding the lies. I note that, while CCA schedules for 2016−2018 would have been helpful, all three assertions were raised by the Defence at trial in 2025. Notwithstanding that I disagree that there are any Lucas lies, this does not detract from my conclusion at [181] that DCC is not a creditworthy witness. Credibility of AMR 185 AMR was key to the Defence’s case. I therefore deal briefly with her credibility. 186 I find AMR’s credibility as a witness impeached. At trial, the Prosecution had identified material inconsistencies between the account AMR had provided in her

statement to the police dated 4 January 2021 (“AMR’s Police Statement”), 347 Foot Note 347 × Exhibit P90 (Investigation Statement recorded from AMR on 4 January 2021). and the account she provided in court. AMR could not proffer a satisfactory explanation for any of the following inconsistencies. (a) AMR provided two different accounts of what occurred at the First Family Meeting. In AMR’s Police Statement, she stated that, during the First Family Meeting, DCC explained that C, CYR, and himself were watching TV in the master bedroom when he smacked her on the leg as he found her irritating. In court, she said DCC did not tell her what transpired. When cross-examined on her police statement, AMR merely stated “I can’t explain that”, 348 Foot Note 348 × NE 22 October 2025 at p 6 line 5. followed by “I cannot remember”. 349 Foot Note 349 × NE 22 October 2025 at p 11 line 22. (b) AMR provided two different accounts on C’s complaint to her prior to the Second Family Meeting. In AMR’s Police Statement, she stated that C told her that DCC locked the master bedroom door and hugged her inside and, in response, AMR asked C if she had struggled or screamed when DCC did that. However, in court, AMR stated that C did not tell her where this incident occurred and did not tell her that DCC locked the door and hugged her inside the master bedroom. 350 Foot Note 350 × NE 21 October 2025 at p

107 lines 3−15. AMR later stated that C did say that DCC locked the door, 351 Foot Note 351 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 112 line 17. though AMR maintained that C did not say this was in the master bedroom. 352 Foot Note 352 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 112 lines 5−24. When asked for an explanation, AMR stated “I actually cannot remember”. 353 Foot Note 353 × NE 22 October 2025 at p 14 lines 2−7. (c) AMR provided differing evidence on whether the children in the Residence would be in the master bedroom unaccompanied. In AMR’s Police Statement, she stated that there was an incident in which a domestic helper told her that the children, including C, were in the master bedroom watching TV. However, in court, AMR stated that, whenever C was on the third floor, C would always be accompanied by her. 354 Foot Note 354 × NE 21 October 2025 at p 35 lines 12−22. When asked for an explanation, AMR stated that “if they could be able to watch TV together it is very, very rarely to have this time […] so they might have that 5 minutes watching TV at that one incident”. 355 Foot Note 355 × NE 22 October 2025 at p 21 lines 4−8. This was unsatisfactory, as it does not explain why AMR took such a categorical position while on the stand, even if it was, on her own evidence, a rare occurrence. (d) AMR’s multiple versions on the status of the locking mechanism in her master bedroom are discussed above at

[162]-[163]. The Defence’s evidence on the two family meetings 187 Finally, it is pertinent to draw together the threads of the Defence evidence on the two family meetings, as these were C’s first reports of anything untoward. Both DCC and AMR testified that C did not cry 356 Foot Note 356 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 109 line 23 to p 110 line 11; NE 14 October 2025 at p 111 lines 14−16; NE 21 October 2025 at p 27 lines 9−24; NE 21 October 2025 at p 115 lines 4−7. or gesticulate 357 Foot Note 357 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 110 lines 14−25; NE 14 October 2025 at p 111 lines 17−19; NE 21 October 2025 at p 98 lines 6−11; NE 21 October 2025 at p 115 lines 4−7. during both Family Meetings, while it was CMR’s and CFR’s evidence that C had cried and gesticulated towards her body at both Family Meetings. C herself had no recall of the content of the meetings. 188 AMR’s evidence is dealt with at [186(a)]-[186(b)]. DCC provided two different accounts of how the First Family Meeting came to be. In his evidence-in-chief, DCC stated that the First Family Meeting was convened as a result of C accusing him of inappropriately touching her, and his subsequent denial of the same. 358 Foot Note 358 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 96 line 13 to p 98 line 21. He said that the thigh incident (alluded to above at [134]) was not related to either of the family meetings. 359 Foot Note 359 × NE 14 October 2025 at

p 27 lines 14-15. However, in the course of defence counsel’s cross-examination of C, it was stated that “[DCC] recalls that this first family meeting … was because of this particular incident”, where he had hit C’s outer thigh because she was disturbing him while he was watching YouTube. 360 Foot Note 360 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 105 line 14 to p 106 line 2. When he was cross-examined on this inconsistency, DCC did not explain why but instead simply disagreed that there was even such an inconsistency. 361 Foot Note 361 × NE 14 October 2025 at p 108 lines 15−20. 189 For the Second Family Meeting, DCC could not remember anything C said or did. He said he stormed out of the room after offering to jump down a building because he felt CFR had not given him any opportunity to speak. In his oral testimony, DCC stated that he could not remember AGM saying anything at the Second Family Meeting, save for her shouting at him to go to her room. 362 Foot Note 362 × NE 15 October 2025 at p 17 lines 1−21. However, in his VRI Statement, DCC stated that, after being called into her room, AGM proceeded to “talk [to] and reprimand” him and C. 363 Foot Note 363 × NE 15 October 2025 at p 21 lines 3−9. In his VRI Statement, DCC also stated that AGM said “don’t so close la. If all these things is [sic] going to happen and she’s going to say that, then might as well just don’t, don’t be so

close”. 364 Foot Note 364 × NE 15 October 2025 at p 22 lines 21−24. When this inconsistency was brought to DCC’s attention, DCC could not explain. 190 AGM’s evidence did not assist. Although the Second Family Meeting took place in her room, when asked about the meetings, AGM responded that she could not remember as it “happened a long time ago”. 365 Foot Note 365 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 6 lines 14−20. AGM subsequently stated that she also did not know what had led to the Family Meetings. 366 Foot Note 366 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 14 lines 5−10. Despite her asserted ignorance, AGM was able to categorically deny the veracity of C’s evidence on the Second Family Meeting. 367 Foot Note 367 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 15 lines 16−23. She confirmed that she told C that she was lying at the Second Family Meeting (as recounted above at [126]–[128]). 368 Foot Note 368 × NE 17 October 2025 at p 15 line 24 to p 16 line 4. 191 Arising from the unreliable and differing positions, I accorded no weight to any of the Defence witnesses’ versions of the family meetings, save for the undisputed assertion that DCC offered to commit suicide at the second meeting. In my view, it is not material to draw detailed conclusions as to what in fact happened at the two meetings, in the light of my earlier findings on C’s consistency. It is not disputed that the two meetings arose from C’s complaint of a

sort that fell short of a report sufficiently specific to amount to corroboration. Summation on the Defence’s evidence 192 I hold that the evidence of the Defence’s witnesses does not raise any reasonable doubt on the totality of the Prosecution’s case. Conclusion 193 In conclusion, C’s evidence on charges A2 and A3 is unusually convincing. DCC’s evidence is not credible. 194 In GCK at [91]–[92], the Court of Appeal observed: 91 In a sense, the “unusually convincing” standard is not a “test” at all, but rather, a heuristic tool. It is a cautionary reminder to the court of the high threshold that the Prosecution must meet in order to secure a conviction, and of the anxious scrutiny that is required because of the severe consequences that will follow from a conviction. That scrutiny is directed towards the sufficiency of a witness’s testimony, which is inextricably linked to the ultimate inquiry of whether the case against the accused person has been proved by the Prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt: see Mohammed Liton at [39]. 92 … because the “unusually convincing” standard is directed towards whether the Prosecution has satisfied its onerous burden of proof, it applies as a cautionary reminder at the last stage of the evaluation of the evidence and just before a conviction is found. The “unusually convincing” standard is not meant to impose a mandatory warning from the judge

to himself or herself: see Mohammed Liton ([32] supra) at [39]. Rather, its aim is to ensure that the trial judge has an awareness of the dangers of convicting the accused person on uncorroborated evidence, and that he or she (as well as an appellate court) undertakes a rigorous and holistic assessment of the evidence. [emphasis in original] 195 Bearing these principles in mind, I acquit DCC on A1. I find him guilty and convict him accordingly on A2 and A3. Valerie Thean Judge of the High Court Anandan Bala, Daphne Lim, Benedict Chan and Joel Fun (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Prosecution; Wong Hin Pkin Wendell, Andrew Chua Ruiming and Ng Jun De Andrew (Drew & Napier LLC) for the accused.