Friday , May 24 2019
Home / singapore / The documents reveal that the NUS voyeur was filmed several times in the toilet

The documents reveal that the NUS voyeur was filmed several times in the toilet



SINGAPORE: National University The Singapore University (NUS), which has made several videos of children in the toilet several times, received a 24-month conditional warning instead of prosecution by the police, according to a document detailing the school disciplinary committee offenses. between 2015 and 2018 and their results.

Documents obtained from a university student portal and uploaded last weekend by a group of NUS Facebook students show that the NUS Board has heard at least 26 cases of sexual misconduct over three academic years.

Several cases included students taking pictures and videos of students and students in the shower and video upskirt. In other cases, the perpetrators touched the thighs or buttocks of the students.

However, the document also showed that children are among the victims of NUS sexual voyeurism. It does not state where these offenses took place.

READ: NUS students call for school to be responsible for sexual misconduct on campus

In the case of the document, the undergraduate graduated "entering the children's toilet and filming the children in the adjacent box several times" between 2015 and 2016, according to the document.

The offender was given 24 months conditional warning by the police. He was also temporarily suspended for two semesters, mandated to undergo mandatory counseling and psychological critique, fined S $ 1,000 and issued official reprimand.

The CNA asked NUS for more information on the case.

READ: "We Disappointed": NUS President apologizes to graduates for cases of sexual misconduct

NUS's handling of sexual misconduct cases was in focus, after college student Monica Baey took on Instagram to call for a tougher action against a student who filmed her shower.

Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said on Monday that the punishment of Mrs. Baey's offender, which included a one-month suspension and a ban on staying in a housing estate, was "manifestly inadequate".

In response to a children's case, CNA lawyers said that while universities have the right to decide how they wish to review incidents occurring on their premises, minor or child offenses are generally considered more serious.

READ: "Extremely disappointed" with City Hall on sexual misconduct: NUS Student Union

Ms. Cheryl Ng of Intelleigen Legal said that in the case of a student who was filming children in the toilet while a conditional warning "looks a bit surprising" there may be unknown facts.

"Attorney General Chambers (AGC) usually take a very firm stance when children become victims in such situations. It is also more difficult that children were the main goal. not the strength of evidence, "Mrs. Ng said.

"If there is no evidence, then it may be difficult to successfully prosecute the accused accused. As such, they decide to issue warnings or police," Mrs. Ng said.

Gloria-James Civetta's lawyer at Gloria James-Civetta & Co said that the fact that the offense occurred in the school premises gives the university "the right to discipline or hand over the case to the police".

Given that the perpetrator is a student and the video was not sent out, the board's decision "corresponds to the crime," said Mrs James-Civetta.

She added that a student may face charges under the Film Act or the Child and Juvenile Act.

READ: A 19-year-old man investigating how Tom peeked into the men's toilet in the NTU living room

Mr. Che Wei Chin of Covenant Chambers said that in cases of vulnerable victims such as children, AGC is more likely to issue fees instead of just a conditional warning.

"Some of the factors that AGC is likely to consider when deciding to issue a fee are: The degree of culpability, the damage to children (a), whether there are public policy reasons," Mr. Che said.

However, he added that it is within the AGC's right to ask the police to issue a conditional warning if they find that a person's conduct is a unique incident and that his chances of recurrence are not high.

However, if a person filmed the children several times over different time periods, each shooting opportunity could constitute a single charge, and the person could technically face multiple charges.

"In such cases, a conditional warning could be unjustifiably lenient," Mr. Che said.

Lawyer Ashwin Ganapathy of the IRB Law added that while a conditional warning is not a legally binding blame statement, it may have a deterrent effect on the student.

"In this case, the recipient has received a 24-month conditional warning. This means he is forced to stay on the right track for another 24 months," said Mr. Ganapathy.

"Twenty-four months is by no means a short period of time. If he does not appreciate the chance given to him and reoffends, he is likely to be charged with the latest crimes and crimes for which he received a conditional warning," he added. Mr. Ganapathy added.

Anisha Joseph, director of the AWARE Sexual Assistance Center, said that, as children cannot legally agree with a range of actions, the need to protect children's privacy is even stronger than that of adults.

"There may be a belief that filming a baby in the bathroom because it's not physical violence is not an abuse or a minor form of abuse. However, without going to what the perpetrator was planning to do with shots, shooting someone without knowing or permitting is clear violation of privacy and respect, "Mrs. Joseph said.

"It is the responsibility of the institutions to approach sexual harassment on their premises with zero tolerance through strong policies, procedures and training."

She added: "We expect institutions to keep their communities safe, more than we expect individuals to protect themselves or their children from harm."

Editor's Note: This article has been modified for clarity. It is not yet clear where the offenses occurred.

More Jalelah Abu Baker reports.


Source link