Among the recent amendments to the Penal Code is a new offence of “Sexual grooming of minor under 16″. This offence is targeted at sexual predators who prowl Internet chat rooms hoping to procure minors for sexual activity.

A person above 21 years of age commits this offence if he intentionally meets or travels to meet a minor. These acts must be done with the intention of committing a sexual offence with the minor. The accused must also have met or communicated with the minor on at least two prior occasions.

Since no actual harm need occur to the minor for the offence to be made out, one can look at the new offence as an ‘attempt’ provision that aims to shield the minor from the harm of a sexual offence. A provision for attempts in general already exists in the Penal Code, so a comparison may be useful.

Compared to the existing attempts provision, the new offence has a lower actus reus requirement. Merely meeting or travelling to meet a minor, as envisaged by the new offence, will not amount to “embarking on the crime proper”, which is the usual requirement for attempts under the Penal Code.

The upshot is that the requisite mens rea will be harder to prove. Proving that an accused who merely travelled to meet a minor intended to commit a sexual offence will not be easy. A great deal of additional evidence will be needed. This may include Internet chat records of a suggestive nature and the presence of pornography or condoms on the accused when he met or travelled to meet the minor.

A person found guilty of sexual grooming may be fined and jailed for up to 3 years. In some cases, this may be disproportionately severe. Take, for example, an accused who meets a groomed minor with the intention of outraging her modesty, but is arrested before being able to do so. He may be jailed for up to 3 years under the new offence, although the maximum penalty for outrage of modesty is only 2 years.

In practice, however, an accused who actually does outrage the modesty of a groomed minor is likely to be charged with both outrage of modesty and sexual grooming, attracting a penalty of up to 5 years’ imprisonment. The new provision may thereby operate as an ‘aggravating factor’: where a sexual offence is committed with a minor, the fact that the minor has been groomed may increase the maximum penalty by 3 years.

A similar offence in the UK has primarily been used in this way. In most reported cases, the offender is charged with an actual sexual offence and the grooming offence. Should things turn out the same way in Singapore, the new offence may be inconsequential in practice, since courts here already recognise that grooming can be an ‘aggravating factor’. The only real change will be in the maximum possible penalty.

Still, the new provision will be useful where there is enough evidence to show that an accused intends to commit a sexual offence. Being able to prevent the sexual offence from occurring will then be invaluable to the minor. These cases may be rare, but as NMP Siew Kum Hong notes, “online predators will now have to think twice, because even though it is difficult to prove, it’s not impossible.”

But deterrence alone is unlikely to be a satisfactory solution. Parents and educators must also play their part by warning minors of the risks posed to them by the Internet. Public education may also help parents identify early warning signs, so that potential crimes can be prevented before it is too late.

One innovative step that the UK has taken is to provide a telephone helpline for adults who have thought or are thinking about committing sexual offences with minors. The potential offender who calls is then counselled by trained staff who will advise him on how to prevent himself from offending. The helpline also assists parents who suspect that their children are being groomed. The service has been largely successful so far: it averages over 120 calls per month, 45% of those being from potential offenders.

Implementing a similar service and exploring other non-legal measures could likewise go a long way towards protecting minors from sexual abuse here. The new anti-grooming offence may thus be little more than a first step, although it certainly is one in the right direction.

Mohan Gopalan is a second year law student and an associate editor of SLR. Mohan would like to thank Zhong Zewei for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.