Lawyer accused of perverting course of justice, hindering police
A lawyer, suspended in 2018 for the offensive way he cross-examined a molestation victim - by referring to and staring at her breasts - has allegedly run afoul of the law.
Edmund Wong, 61, has had two charges slapped on him.
In the first charge, he is accused of intentionally perverting the course of justice by filing a false statement in relation to the defence of one Gao Taotao from China, then an alleged drug offender.
He allegedly did it some time on or before Dec 11, 2015, and the statement said Gao's "urine is found to contain methamphetamine due to contamination from medical she took", according to the charge.
The statement is alleged to have originated from Wong and not Gao, and he had no basis to believe it was true.
If convicted under Section 204A of the Penal Code, Wong can be jailed for up to seven years, fined or given both punishments.
Gao, an overstayer from China, was nabbed when police raided a Housing Board unit in Serangoon Central for suspected vice activities in July 2015. Drug items were also seized.
She was convicted in 2016 of possessing and consuming methamphetamine, as well as three other drug-linked charges.
A district judge jailed her for a total of 18 months in August 2016 after taking into account her offence of overstaying for 176 days. She represented herself at the trial.
In the second charge, Wong is accused of blocking a senior police officer from carrying out his duties by shouting at him and refusing to leave the scene when told to do so.
The offence is said to have taken place in a Geylang back lane at about 10.10pm on Jan 13, 2017, during police operations.
It carries a jail term of up to three months, a maximum fine of $2,500, or both.
Wong, defended by veteran lawyer Edmond Pereira, is out on $15,000 bail.
A pre-trial conference in the State Courts is due in June.
In May 2018, the Court of Three Judges suspended Wong from legal practice for five years for professional misconduct.
A disciplinary tribunal had referred his case to the court for his offensive line of questioning of a molestation victim during a trial, which breached professional conduct rules.