the news now

The world's news, cross-checked among reputable sources.

Court of Appeal acquits former Wah!Banana actor of rape and sexual assault

2 sources · Singapore · 2 of them are linked to a state

Who reported this

  • CNA Singapore · Centre · State-affiliated · Mediacorp, wholly owned by Temasek Holdings
  • The Straits Times Singapore · Centre-right · State-affiliated · SPH Media Trust; management shares under the NPPA

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

Every source for this story reports from Singapore.

The Court of Appeal has acquitted Lev Panfilov, a 30 year old Russian and Singapore permanent resident, of four charges including rape, sexual assault, and molestation. Panfilov, a former actor and scriptwriter for the comedy channel Wah!Banana, had previously been convicted by the High Court and sentenced to 11.5 years in jail and 12 strokes of the cane. The court overturned these convictions on September 2, citing material inconsistencies in the testimony of the alleged victim.

The incident occurred on January 12, 2021, at Panfilov's condominium unit after he invited a woman he met on Tinder to work on a script. While Panfilov admitted the sexual acts occurred, he maintained they were consensual. Justice Sushil Nair, speaking for a three judge panel, stated that the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.

One primary inconsistency involved whether the woman screamed during the assault. She told a doctor she had screamed, but later testified in court that she had not. The court suggested she may have embellished her account. Additionally, the court questioned the validity of a pair of blood stained underwear presented as physical evidence. The garment was retrieved from a laundry basket six days after the incident, and medical experts noted that the woman's injuries did not account for the amount of blood found on the fabric. The court also noted that the blood could have been menstrual.

Further doubts were raised regarding the woman's credibility. The court found it puzzling that she had no recollection of visiting a clinic to request a medical memo regarding her injuries and that she initially hesitated to file a police report due to a lack of evidence, despite the existence of the bloodied underwear. Both reports describe the court's conclusion that these factors collectively undermined the prosecution's case.

How each side framed it

Centre
The center outlet focused on the legal reasoning and the specific evidence that led to the acquittal.
Centre-right
The center-right outlet provided more biographical detail about the defendant and a more chronological breakdown of the complainant's actions.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.