Court looks at how employer used financial pressures to maintain control over workers' circumstances
The General Division of Singapore's High Court recently dealt with a criminal case where a bar owner was charged with rape and outrage of modesty of a 17-year-old worker in February 2020, as well as harboring a person who had absconded from a place of safety under the Children and Young Persons Act.
The case highlighted significant concerns about worker vulnerability when employment and housing become intertwined.
The court examined how the bar owner's position as both employer and accommodation provider created circumstances that enabled serious offences.
The case involved three young workers who had absconded from a state facility: the victim who was 17, and two other workers aged 20 and 18, who later became key witnesses in the trial.
The employer owned and operated Don Bar & Bistro on Dunlop Street. The 18-year-old worker started work at the bar on February 15, 2020, and subsequently introduced both the victim and the 20-year-old to the employer.
Court documents revealed he hired the victim to work at the bar and permitted all three to stay at the premises.
On February 21, 2020, police raided the premises following a report about the absconded workers. The employer then moved all three workers to his rental apartment.
The employer faced two charges initially - rape and outrage of modesty under the Penal Code. The third charge for harboring under the Children and Young Persons Act was stood down during the trial.
After being convicted of the first two charges, the employer pleaded guilty to the third charge.
The prosecution argued that the employer had exploited his position of authority over the young worker, using both her employment situation and need for accommodation to create circumstances of vulnerability.
The court noted: "[The bar owner] told [the worker] that if she stayed with her friends, she would have to 'fork out money' for rent and groceries, whereas if she stayed with him...she would not need to pay rent and would moreover be given a job by him."
The court examined how the employer used financial pressures to maintain control over workers' circumstances.
In sentencing, the court considered the employer-employee relationship and accommodation arrangements as aggravating factors that increased vulnerability.
"[The worker's] personal circumstances should be taken into consideration. Not only was she under 18 years of age at the material time, the fact that she had absconded from a girls' home put her in a vulnerable position vis-à-vis the institutions of the state that were meant to protect her," the judgment stated.
The provision of accommodation significantly increased worker vulnerability, the court found. The judgment emphasised: "[The bar owner] was not just aware of [the worker's] vulnerability...he deliberately took steps to render her [vulnerable]."
The court particularly emphasised how the combination of employment and accommodation had created circumstances enabling exploitation: "At the time of the offences, [the worker] was dependent on [the bar owner] for income and shelter."
After evaluating the evidence about workplace dynamics and circumstances, the court found the employer guilty of all three charges. The judgment resulted in a global sentence of 13 years and four weeks' imprisonment with nine strokes of the cane.
