An anaesthetist accused of molesting a woman almost four years ago was cleared of all four criminal charges filed against him on Monday (16 Aug) after the state prosecutors filed an application to withdraw the charges.

District Judge Ng Peng Hong granted the prosecution’s application for a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DATA) for Dr Yeo Sow Nam, 52.

The prosecution had earlier informed of the decision for the application at a pre-trial conference on 29 June. This was also after the prosecution sought multiple adjournments to finalise its position.

Their decision to withdraw the charges was made after reviewing the evidence and the defence’s representations, according to the prosecution.

At this point, the defence has not called upon its witnesses — including Dr Yeo — to take the stand.

The complainant, 33, had accused Dr Yeo of inappropriately touching her four times at his pain management clinic — The Pain Specialist — at Mount Elizabeth Hospital on the evening of 9 Oct 2017.

Allegations included him squeezing her waist, hugging her and quickly gripping her breasts, and kissing her head.

The woman, whose identity is currently protected under a gag order, is said to be not a patient or staff member at Dr Yeo’s pain management clinic. She is also not a fellow doctor.

While the media and public were banned from attending the hearing when she testified on March this year, Dr Yeo’s lawyers — Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, Mr Chooi Jing Yen and Mr Johannes Hadi — successfully applied for court transcripts to be released under the principle of open justice.

The prosecution objected to this but the court ruled in the defence’s favour.

During the hearing in March, the judge rejected Mr Thuraisingam’s application for the prosecution to disclose the woman’s police statements, as he was of the view that she did not detract from her general tenor despite the inconsistencies between her statements to the police and her testimony at the stand.

Woman a “self-confessed perjurer” who has admitted to knowingly giving false evidence on oath: Dr Yeo’s lawyers

Under Mr Thuraisingam’s cross-examination, she admitted to lying on the witness stand about various material aspects of the allegations she had filed against Dr Yeo.

One such example was on how the woman gave conflicting evidence to the court on an incident that would have made a strong impression on her.

Testimony under prosecutor’s examination on 1 March

Testimony under Mr Thuraisingam’s examination on 2 March

Another example is where she admitted that she lied in court about Dr Yeo planting “a kiss on [her] forehead”.

The woman had also admitted during the cross-examination that she would lie in order to achieve a stated objective.

Possible motive put to alleged victim during cross-examination

During cross-examination, Mr Thuraisingam confronted the woman with an instance on 9 October 2017, where Dr Yeo gave her a “serious scolding” for not meeting her promise to give him the medical literature, dilution formula, and contract for Dr Yeo to procure a pharmaceutical product sold by her company.

When asked about the three things she had promised to give Dr Yeo, she testified that she could not recall, despite confirming otherwise earlier.

Earlier in the day, Mr Thuraisingam had questioned her about a WhatsApp message she had sent to Dr Yeo’s clinic assistant on 5 October 2017, in which she asked the assistant for help on checking “if the contract is what he is referring to”.

The woman affirmed that she had sent the message, and when pressed on why she had asked the assistant to do so, she said that she had the impression that Dr Yeo “was expecting something” from her.

She also agreed, when questioned by Mr Thuraisingam, that Dr Yeo had asked her for dilution ratios and medical literature at a business dinner the three attended on 27 September 2017.

Mr Thuraisingam pointed out to her that she had told Dr Yeo in a text message that she would not be able to make up for her sales target for the previous month if the order was rejected, and that she had later testified to the Prosecution that such a statement was untrue as it was a “sales ploy”.

The woman agreed, stating that she wanted Dr Yeo to “honour the purchase”.

Further, the woman’s colleague testified during cross-examination with Mr Thuraisingam that the woman did not mention that Dr Yeo was angry over her failure to bring the promised medical literature on 9 October 2017.

The woman had only brought promotional material to the said meeting with the doctor.

Regarding the police report against Dr Yeo on 12 October 2017, the woman’s colleague testified that the woman decided to file the police report and did not want to confront the doctor together with the said colleague.

The woman was earlier forced to make a decision between filing a police report or to confront Dr Yeo over the allegation that he had molested the woman.

The colleague also said that the woman did not go into detail on what had happened to her at Dr Yeo’s clinic on that day despite having spent the afternoon and going to the police station together.

The colleague added that the woman did not disclose having missed the meeting with Dr Yeo on 28 September 2017.

Gag order on complainant remains until prosecution decides to take action

Dr Yeo’s lawyers had applied for the gag order on the complainant’s identity to be lifted.

They argued: “She is not a ‘real’ victim who has been disappointed by the prosecution’s inability to prove the commission of an actual crime in court.“

“She is a liar who has made false, scurrilous allegations against (Dr Yeo) — which were publicly reported over the course of more than a year during these proceedings in the name of open justice — and perjured herself… She should not be permitted now to abuse the protection of the gag order to escape the usual operation of the open justice principle.”

It therefore follows that upon Dr Yeo’s acquittal, the raison d’être of the gag order falls away entirely. The complainant is no longer a purported victim of a sex crime who deserves protection from public scrutiny pursuant to the specific legislative exceptions.

“Further and more importantly, the complainant’s self-confessed perjury sways the public interest calculus decisively in favour of lifting the gag order,” Dr Yeo’s lawyers said.

Generally, the granting of a DATA should not necessarily result in the lifting of any gag orders in place on the identification of a complainant, as acquittals “may be granted for any number of reasons which may be unconnected with an accused’s factual innocence”, they added.

The complainant is not an “unproven victim” by operation of the legal presumption of innocence, but rather is “a self-confessed perjurer” who has admitted to lying to the court about material elements of her allegations against Dr Yeo, the doctor’s lawyers submitted.

“Her lies not only completely undermine the veracity and credibility of her allegations, but are themselves criminal offences under inter alia section 191 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) which provides for the offence of giving false evidence under oath,” they said.

The woman’s perjury in this case “clearly and decisively vindicate” Dr Yeo’s “factual innocence” and “disqualify her from continued protection under the gag order”, said Dr Yeo’s lawyers.

“The public interest presently at stake, therefore, concerns open justice and public confidence in the administration of justice,” they added.

Further, the press, said the lawyers, is bound to report on the Prosecution’s mid-trial decision to withdraw the charges against Dr Yeo and the subsequent DATA granted to him.

“It may also report our submissions on the complainant’s perjury for the public to form its own views on the reasons for the Prosecution’s volte-face in seeking Dr Yeo’s acquittal,” they added.

However, the Prosecution submitted that the gag order should be upheld, citing Section 153(4) of the Women’s Charter and Section 425A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Only if the woman is charged for perjury can the gag order be removed.

According to media reports, Deputy Public Prosecutors Muhamad Imaduddien Abdul Karim and Andre Ong did not say if they intend to charge the complainant.

District Judge Ng Peng Hong then ruled that the gag order will remain in force.

Mr Thuraisingam noted that they reserve their rights to apply for the lifting of the gag order in the future.

Dr Yeo “glad that the truth has prevailed”, but hopes outcome of his case does not deter real survivors of sex crimes from seeking justice

Touching on the Prosecution’s decision to withdraw their charges against him, Dr Yeo, in a statement forwarded to the media by his lawyers, said that while he is “glad that truth has prevailed”, he is also disappointed that the complainant “has jeopardised the good, necessary, and difficult work of ensuring access to justice for real victims of sex crimes”.

This is especially when many survivors “already hesitate to accuse their attackers publicly”, he added.

“I hope that today’s verdict does not discourage real victims of sex crimes from coming forward, or set back the moral agenda in their favour,” said Dr Yeo.

The doctor also said that the past four years have been not only an ordeal for him, but also for his loved ones, staff members, and his patients.

“Despite the distinction and professionalism with which I have served the community as a doctor, I have had to endure the distress and ignominy of being publicly accused of sex crimes I did not commit,” he said.

“Now that I am vindicated by the grace of God, I wish to thank my patients and colleagues for their trust in me throughout this difficult time.

“I also thank the Singapore Medical Council, the Singapore Medical Association, the Academy Medicine of Singapore, the hospitals, and the wider medical community for standing by me.

“Most importantly, I thank my family and friends who have carried me through this tribulation with their support and prayers,” said Dr Yeo.