https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/shut-gates-singapore-judge-criticises-014459000.html
Mon, 21 July 2025 at 9:44 am GMT+8·2-min read
Malay Mail
SINGAPORE, July 21 — High Court Judge Vincent Hoong criticised inappropriate cross-examination tactics during sexual offense trials in Singapore, citing examples where lawyers made degrading suggestions to victims, including telling a rape victim’s mother she “could have easily avoided” assault by crossing her legs.
In another disturbing case Hoong noted, a defence lawyer inappropriately stared at a molestation victim’s breasts and asked her to stand up to demonstrate potential “motive” for the assault based on her clothing, The Straits Times reported.
Hoong, who also serves as presiding judge of the State Courts, delivered these remarks during a keynote address to Singapore Academy of Law members at a private event held on July 2, with the speech subsequently published on the Singapore Courts website.
The judge said that courtrooms should not be battlegrounds and witness stands should not serve as arenas for humiliation, stating there is neither honour in extracting testimony through degradation nor skill in exploiting witnesses’ emotional vulnerability.
This judicial guidance follows Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon’s December 2024 emphasis on judges taking more active supervisory roles in managing sexual offence cases, particularly regarding how complainants give evidence.
New measures introduced in January include pretrial checklists designed to identify contentious issues, enabling judges to prevent irrelevant questioning during trials.
Hoong acknowledged that while robust cross-examination within proper bounds remains essential for fair defence representation, inappropriate questioning can become traumatising without proper sensitivity.
The judge specifically condemned questions that reinforce outdated victim-blaming notions, such as expectations that victims should physically resist attackers or immediately report crimes, calling such approaches gratuitously harmful and irrelevant.
Defence lawyer Luo Ling Ling, who represents clients accused of sexual offenses, supports protecting victims while vigorously defending clients, sharing her experience of learning to balance tough questioning with respectful tone after witnessing a victim’s emotional breakdown during cross-examination.
Luo said that while she would still ask necessary challenging questions in similar cases, she would now employ a gentler approach after realising the impact of her questioning style on a young victim who was testifying via camera.
‘Shut the gates’: Singapore judge criticises victim-blaming tactics in sexual offence cases
Malay MailMon, 21 July 2025 at 9:44 am GMT+8·2-min read
Malay Mail
SINGAPORE, July 21 — High Court Judge Vincent Hoong criticised inappropriate cross-examination tactics during sexual offense trials in Singapore, citing examples where lawyers made degrading suggestions to victims, including telling a rape victim’s mother she “could have easily avoided” assault by crossing her legs.
In another disturbing case Hoong noted, a defence lawyer inappropriately stared at a molestation victim’s breasts and asked her to stand up to demonstrate potential “motive” for the assault based on her clothing, The Straits Times reported.
Hoong, who also serves as presiding judge of the State Courts, delivered these remarks during a keynote address to Singapore Academy of Law members at a private event held on July 2, with the speech subsequently published on the Singapore Courts website.
The judge said that courtrooms should not be battlegrounds and witness stands should not serve as arenas for humiliation, stating there is neither honour in extracting testimony through degradation nor skill in exploiting witnesses’ emotional vulnerability.
This judicial guidance follows Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon’s December 2024 emphasis on judges taking more active supervisory roles in managing sexual offence cases, particularly regarding how complainants give evidence.
New measures introduced in January include pretrial checklists designed to identify contentious issues, enabling judges to prevent irrelevant questioning during trials.
Hoong acknowledged that while robust cross-examination within proper bounds remains essential for fair defence representation, inappropriate questioning can become traumatising without proper sensitivity.
The judge specifically condemned questions that reinforce outdated victim-blaming notions, such as expectations that victims should physically resist attackers or immediately report crimes, calling such approaches gratuitously harmful and irrelevant.
Defence lawyer Luo Ling Ling, who represents clients accused of sexual offenses, supports protecting victims while vigorously defending clients, sharing her experience of learning to balance tough questioning with respectful tone after witnessing a victim’s emotional breakdown during cross-examination.
Luo said that while she would still ask necessary challenging questions in similar cases, she would now employ a gentler approach after realising the impact of her questioning style on a young victim who was testifying via camera.
