Singapore's High Court re-examines police officer's plea in controversial case
The High Court of Singapore recently ruled on a case involving a young Singaporean who was sentenced to reformative training for offenses committed while serving as a police officer.
Fahd Siddiqui, a 21-year-old Singaporean was deployed as a Ground Response Force officer when he committed the offenses in November 2022.
He had used his position as a police officer to attempt to obtain free sexual services from social escorts by showing his warrant card and threatening to report them to the police if they did not comply with his demands.
According to records, on November 1, 2022, the police officer contacted a social escort, referred to as "R," through the website "Locanto" to inquire about her sexual services.
After agreeing to the quoted price of $400, the officer arrived at R's hotel room around 9 pm that same day. However, upon meeting R, the officer claimed he was not interested because she did not resemble the person he had seen in the advertisement on "Locanto," and he left the room.
Shortly after, the officer received a message from R's "agent" via WhatsApp, informing him that the price for R's sexual services could be reduced. The officer then returned to the hotel room and showed R his warrant card, identifying himself as a police officer.
He proceeded to threaten R, stating that he would report her to the police unless they could come to an "arrangement," implying that if R provided him with free sexual services, he would not report her to the authorities.
R, feeling frightened and distressed, refused to comply with the officer's demands. She began to cry and called her "agent" for assistance. As R was speaking on the phone, the officer left the room without receiving any sexual services from her.
The district judge sentenced him to take reformative training with a minimum period of six months, considering both the need for rehabilitation and deterrence.
Siddiqui appealed against the sentence of reformative training, contending that probation would be a more appropriate sentence to balance the needs of rehabilitation and deterrence.
The High Court judge agreed that rehabilitation was an important consideration, given his age, absence of prior convictions, and good potential for reform.
However, the judge emphasized that deterrence and retribution were equally important sentencing considerations, as the offenses involved an abuse of police power and authority, which could erode public trust in law enforcement.
While the High Court judge found that probation was not appropriate due to the need for deterrence and retribution, he also determined that reformative training was not suitable in this case.
The judge noted that Siddiqui had a low risk of reoffending, positive achievements in school and national service, and strong familial support.
As a result, the judge substituted the sentence of reformative training with a seven-day imprisonment term, which would fulfill the need for deterrence and retribution while allowing the individual to move on with his life and emphasizing the unacceptability of his conduct to the public and other law enforcement officers.
