AN APPEALS judge has called for measurements to be taken of the penises of boys involved in oral sex cases.
Justice V. K. Rajah, hearing an appeal by prosecutors against the acquittal of a taxi driver accused of performing oral sex on a four-year-old, questioned if it was possible for the cabby to have done so, since boys’ penises do not develop until they are older.
Justice Rajah was quoted by Lianhe Zaobao as having asked the prosecution on Monday whether the motion described by the boy in court was possible with a “very, very small organ”.
The cabby, 45, had faced five charges of sexual abuse against the boy, his older sister and his aunt.
The prosecution wanted him to be tried on all the charges, but upon lawyer Wee Pan Lee’s objection, only one charge – that of oral sex on the boy in 2005 – was proceeded upon.
The other charges have been stood down, pending the outcome of the prosecution’s appeal against acquittal.
The boy, eight at the start of the trial in March last year, cannot be named. The cabby was friends with the boy’s parents and used to take care of him while they were at work. Before the alleged incident, the boy said he liked “uncle”. After it, he said he was “a bit unhappy with uncle”.
The cabby said the witnesses had colluded to frame him for having offended them in some way. At the trial’s end, Judge Kan Ting Chiu acquitted him, saying he was “left with substantial doubts if the events alleged by the boy actually happened”, and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This was what led to the appeal; on Monday, the question of the penis length came up. Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng was quoted by the daily as saying oral sex would have been possible on a small organ, and that the boy had described the cabby’s head moving up and down. Justice Rajah replied that sex offenders usually perform oral sex on older boys, while younger boys are fondled. He said alleged victims’ penis length should be measured in such cases.
DPP Lee replied that the possibility oral sex was performed could not be ruled out and argued the accusers had no reason to lie; she said the boy refused to go to the cabby’s home after the alleged incident. The judge said the boy had given different versions of the abuse but DPP Lee argued he was clear and consistent in describing the act. Mr Wee argued the accounts were different and it was dangerous to convict on the words of a child unless his testimony was unusually compelling.
