The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is threatening the counsel of an acquitted anaesthetist with disciplinary action for alleged abuse of the court’s process.
This action by the AGC is in regards to the recent case involving Dr Yeo Sow Nam, 52, who was acquitted earlier on 16 August of the four charges of molest that were brought against him by the AGC nearly four years ago.
Representing Dr Yeo in his defence was Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, along with two other lawyers from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP (ET LLP). The firm took over the case from Dr Yeo’s previous lawyers after he had spent more than S$600,000 on legal fees.
Mr Thuraisingam, who has been a lawyer in practice since 2001, said in a Facebook post on Tuesday (31 Aug) that the AGC has threatened him with disciplinary action, which says that he had “abused the court’s process by taking the court through the complainant’s lies but yet withdrew Dr Yeo’s application to lift the gag order on the complainant’s identity”.
The state prosecutors had earlier filed an application to withdraw the charges against Dr Yeo, and District Judge Ng Peng Hong granted the prosecution’s application for a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DATA).
Following the acquittal, Dr Yeo’s lawyers filed an application to dismiss for the gag order on the complainant’s identity to be lifted.
“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,” they argued.
“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,” said Dr Yeo’s lawyers.
In their application, the lawyers listed out the various instances during the hearing in March this year where the complainant had confessed to lying under oath.
In the same aforementioned Facebook post, Mr Thuraisingam wrote, “Without giving me any time to respond, they release their allegations against me to the press and articles are written and published online without my response.”
The AGC issued a press statement on Tuesday at about 4.50pm after writing to Mr Thuraisingam at around 4.10pm.
In its statement to the press, it claimed that ET LLP’s public statement claiming that the complainant admitted to lying in court about “material elements” of her allegations of outrage of modesty, against Dr Yeo, were “misleading and regrettable”.
The AGC also stated that it has written to Mr Thuraisingam asking for an explanation of his conduct set out above, as an officer of the Court.
However, Mr Thuraisingam pointed out that the AGC did not inform the press in its statement that he had informed the court that he agreed with the Prosecution’s position that unless the complainant was charged and convicted in court for lying, the court cannot lift the gag order.
“…so while I withdrew the application to lift the gag order, I applied to do so while reserving Dr Yeo’s rights to apply for the gag order to be lifted in the event that the complainant is charged and convicted, on the basis of the complainant’s lies which I had earlier taken the court through,” he explained.
Mr Thuraisingam further highlighted the significance of the reservation of rights to apply to lift the gag order in relation to the evidence of the complainant’s lies is that if an application is made in the future by Dr Yeo, the Prosecution cannot argue that because of the withdrawal of the application, Dr Yeo is precluded from bringing a fresh application to lift the gag order based on the lies which he had highlighted to the court.
“In other words, it keeps the issue alive notwithstanding the withdrawal of the application on that day,” he added.
Mr Thuraisingam went on to say that this is a significant omission by the AGC to the press, noting that it gives the impression that he had no reason on that day to bring the court through the complainant’s lies.
“I respectfully believe that it is unfair of AGC to give only part of the facts to the press without giving me the chance to present the full picture,” he asserted.
It is noteworthy that a complaint to the Law Society against a lawyer by the Attorney-General (A-G) will have to land up in a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing.
This is because the Chief Justice has no discretion in deciding whether to convene a disciplinary tribunal. On the other hand, the Chief Justice has discretion on whether to allow a complaint against the A-G or public prosecutors to be investigated by a disciplinary tribunal, such as in the case of former domestic worker Parti Liyani.
Complainant had admitted to lying under oath during hearing; AGC not pressing charges
In response to the AGC’s statement, ET LLP said that its earlier statements were not misleading.
It set out below the instances of the complainant’s admissions:
- The complainant’s evidence was that Dr Yeo molested her by touching her breasts with his palms facing outwards. She later agreed under cross-examination that it was impossible for Dr Yeo to have done so as he was standing behind her.
- The complainant testified that when Dr Yeo molested her, she raised her arms up towards the ceiling to try and get away from him. She also physically demonstrated this in Court. She later agreed under cross-examination that despite having no actual recollection of this (i.e., raising her arms towards the ceiling), she was nevertheless prepared to say and demonstrate this to the Court.
- She admitted that when she told the Court that she remembered Dr Yeo resting his hand on her hip, she was telling a lie.
- She admitted that she told the Court things that she did not have any recollection of, and that by doing so she was knowingly giving false evidence in Court. She also admitted that she had lied so many times that she could not remember when she was telling the truth and when she was lying.
- She admitted that the evidence she gave in Court in relation to her movements in the room after Dr Yeo allegedly cupped her breasts was false because she did not have any independent recollection of where she moved to.
The portions of the above evidence are referenced in ET LLP’s submissions to lift the gag order dated 4 August 2021.
The AGC has clarified in its press statement on Tuesday that it will not be pressing charges against the complainant as there is no finding by the court in this case that the complainant had lied or had even given inconsistent evidence.
There is also no evidence to suggest that the complainant fabricated her account of events regarding the alleged outrage of modesty, it added.
The AGC also stated that the complainant had denied Dr Yeo’s lawyers’ accusations that she had lied and fabricated the alleged acts of outrage of modesty in respect of all the charges against Dr Yeo.
As noted by Mr Thuraisingam, the court cannot order the gag order on the complainant to be lifted if the complainant is not charged and subsequently convicted in court for lying. This is relation to Section 153(4) of the Women’s Charter and Section 425A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
