FORMER SCHOLAR'S CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE
In Singapore, he would have faced $1,000 fine per video
He may even have been jailed given the scale of his offences, lawyers say
By Selina Lum
FORMER Ministry of Education (MOE) scholarship holder Jonathan Wong would probably have been fined had he been caught with his child pornography collection in Singapore, criminal lawyers here said yesterday.
However, other lawyers pointed out that given the scale of his offences - 50 videos of hardcore porn involving girls as young as six - Singaporean prosecutors may have pressed for a jail term.
Wong, who was found with the child porn clips on his computer at the University of York in Britain, was given a six-month sentence suspended for two years. It means he will not spend any time in jail unless he re-offends during that period.
It was a typical sentence for this type of offence, said Britain's Crown Prosecution Service. The maximum would have been five years.
Wong has also been given an eight-month supervision order and was ordered to forfeit his computer and sign the sex offenders register.
A former gifted education programme student at Hwa Chong Institution, Wong had won an MOE teaching scholarship to study in York. The scholarship was revoked last month, and the ministry has promised to tighten its selection procedures.
In Singapore, there are no specific laws against the possession of child pornography.
Criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan, from Inca Law, said Wong would have been charged with possessing obscene films under the Films Act.
A first offender faces a $1,000 fine for each film in his possession, capped at an aggregate fine of $40,000, a jail term of up to a year, or both.
A repeat offender can be fined at least $2,000 for each film in his possession, capped at an aggregate of $80,000, jailed for up to two years, or both.
However, lawyers interviewed by The Straits Times yesterday said the sentencing norm is a fine, and they have not come across any cases in which someone has been jailed for possessing pornographic videos.
'In Singapore, the legislation does not make a distinction between normal pornography and child pornography, while in Europe, there's a thinking that child pornography should be treated more severely,' said Mr Nathan.
Lawyer Amarick Gill, from Amarick Gill & Co, said the law here differentiates only between possession of pirated videos, meaning those that have not been passed by the censorship board, and the more serious offence of possessing obscene videos.
Mr Nathan said that, typically, details about the content of the obscene films are not made known to the court.
However, prosecutors have the discretion to present such information to the court if they want to seek a jail term for severe cases.
Lawyers say that had he committed the offence in Singapore, Wong could have been given probation, given his young age. It would depend on whether the courts could have been persuaded that he could be rehabilitated.
Mr Amolat Singh, from Amolat & Partners, said Wong could have been given probation, considering he was a bright student, as it could be argued that he had committed a victimless crime.
Mr Gill believes that a key factor in sentencing would have been a psychiatric evaluation to find out whether Wong was suffering from any mental condition.
[email protected]
In Singapore, he would have faced $1,000 fine per video
He may even have been jailed given the scale of his offences, lawyers say
By Selina Lum
FORMER Ministry of Education (MOE) scholarship holder Jonathan Wong would probably have been fined had he been caught with his child pornography collection in Singapore, criminal lawyers here said yesterday.
However, other lawyers pointed out that given the scale of his offences - 50 videos of hardcore porn involving girls as young as six - Singaporean prosecutors may have pressed for a jail term.
Wong, who was found with the child porn clips on his computer at the University of York in Britain, was given a six-month sentence suspended for two years. It means he will not spend any time in jail unless he re-offends during that period.
It was a typical sentence for this type of offence, said Britain's Crown Prosecution Service. The maximum would have been five years.
Wong has also been given an eight-month supervision order and was ordered to forfeit his computer and sign the sex offenders register.
A former gifted education programme student at Hwa Chong Institution, Wong had won an MOE teaching scholarship to study in York. The scholarship was revoked last month, and the ministry has promised to tighten its selection procedures.
In Singapore, there are no specific laws against the possession of child pornography.
Criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan, from Inca Law, said Wong would have been charged with possessing obscene films under the Films Act.
A first offender faces a $1,000 fine for each film in his possession, capped at an aggregate fine of $40,000, a jail term of up to a year, or both.
A repeat offender can be fined at least $2,000 for each film in his possession, capped at an aggregate of $80,000, jailed for up to two years, or both.
However, lawyers interviewed by The Straits Times yesterday said the sentencing norm is a fine, and they have not come across any cases in which someone has been jailed for possessing pornographic videos.
'In Singapore, the legislation does not make a distinction between normal pornography and child pornography, while in Europe, there's a thinking that child pornography should be treated more severely,' said Mr Nathan.
Lawyer Amarick Gill, from Amarick Gill & Co, said the law here differentiates only between possession of pirated videos, meaning those that have not been passed by the censorship board, and the more serious offence of possessing obscene videos.
Mr Nathan said that, typically, details about the content of the obscene films are not made known to the court.
However, prosecutors have the discretion to present such information to the court if they want to seek a jail term for severe cases.
Lawyers say that had he committed the offence in Singapore, Wong could have been given probation, given his young age. It would depend on whether the courts could have been persuaded that he could be rehabilitated.
Mr Amolat Singh, from Amolat & Partners, said Wong could have been given probation, considering he was a bright student, as it could be argued that he had committed a victimless crime.
Mr Gill believes that a key factor in sentencing would have been a psychiatric evaluation to find out whether Wong was suffering from any mental condition.
[email protected]
