Court Overturns Lower Court Conviction
On September 2, 2026, the Singapore Court of Appeal acquitted Lev Panfilov, a 30-year-old former actor and scriptwriter for the comedy channel Wah!Banana, of all charges related to a 2021 sexual assault case. The court’s decision effectively overturned a 2025 High Court ruling that had previously sentenced Panfilov to 11.5 years in prison and 12 strokes of the cane.
The three-judge panel, led by Justice Sushil Nair along with Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Ang Cheng Hock, concluded that the prosecution’s case lacked the necessary evidentiary strength to sustain a conviction. Central to the acquittal was the court’s determination that the complainant’s testimony contained material inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the allegations.
This report draws on information published by channelnewsasia.com and straitstimes.com.
Material Inconsistencies and Questionable Evidence
The Court of Appeal’s judgment highlighted two primary areas where the complainant’s account failed to meet the required standard for a conviction in a “he-said-she-said” case. First, the court identified a contradiction regarding whether the complainant had screamed during the alleged assault. While the complainant initially told a doctor that she had screamed, she later testified in court that she did not, despite attempting to. The court accepted the doctor’s contemporaneous notes as accurate, suggesting that the complainant may have embellished her account.
Second, the court cast significant doubt on the only physical evidence presented by the prosecution: a pair of blood-stained underwear. Justice Nair noted that the item was retrieved from the complainant’s laundry basket six days after the incident, during which time she had her period. The lack of evidence to rule out menstrual blood, combined with the fact that the investigating doctor found no corresponding wounds on the woman’s body, led the court to conclude that the exhibit could not reliably serve as evidence of a violent assault.
Legal and Procedural Implications
The defense team, led by lawyers Johannes Hadi and Eugene Thuraisingam, argued that the sexual encounter was consensual and that the evidence provided by the complainant was fabricated. Justice Nair observed that the complainant’s behavior—such as remaining on the bed fully dressed after the alleged incident—was more consistent with a consensual encounter than a violent one. Furthermore, the court found it “puzzling” that the complainant hesitated to make a police report, citing a lack of evidence, despite her possession of the alleged blood-stained item.
The Court of Appeal also granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal for an outstanding charge of obstruction of justice. Following the verdict, Panfilov’s legal team stated that the appeal was “extremely challenging” but expressed satisfaction that the court recognized the material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. Panfilov, who has been in custody since his initial conviction, was cleared of all four charges, and the prosecution’s separate appeal against the original sentence was dismissed.