Lawyer, associate charged over alleged sharing of unredacted info in molest case

Veteran criminal lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam and his associate Johannes Hadi were charged in a district court on Friday (April 22) over the alleged sharing with members of the press unredacted information that could lead to the identity of a woman who had accused a doctor of molestation.

Both lawyers are from Thuraisingam's eponymous law firm and they were part of a team that had represented Dr Yeo Sow Nam, then 52.

The woman had accused Dr Yeo of molesting her and all details that could lead to her identity cannot be revealed due to a gag order.

After a trial, Dr Yeo was given a discharge amounting to an acquittal in August last year.

This means he cannot be charged again with the same offences.

On Friday, Thuraisingam, 46 and Hadi, 31, were each handed two charges under the State Courts Act.

Around March last year, Thuraisingam allegedly instructed Hadi to distribute to the press, transcripts of court proceedings containing unredacted information that could likely lead to the woman's identity.

Hadi is then said to have distributed them to the press on March 16 last year.

Thuraisingam is accused of instructing Hadi to perform a similar act about five months later.

The younger lawyer allegedly distributed the transcripts to the press on Aug 11 last year.

The lawyers' pre-trial conference will take place on May 20.

For each charge under the Act, an offender can be jailed for up to a year and fined up to $5,000.

As for the molestation case, Dr Yeo had been accused of molesting a 32-year-old woman on the 12th storey of Mount Elizabeth Hospital on the evening of Oct 9, 2017.

After a trial, the doctor, who was accused of four counts of molestation, had all of his charges withdrawn in August last year.

Upon the prosecution's application, District Judge Ng Peng Hong gave Dr Yeo a discharge amounting to an acquittal.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) later said that it will not be taking action against the woman.

Following the acquittal, Thuraisingam's firm issued a statement claiming that the woman admitted to lying in court about "material elements" of her allegations of molestation.

In a statement on Aug 31 last year, the AGC said the prosecution had decided to withdraw the charges against Dr Yeo after deciding that her evidence would not be unusually convincing.

In sexual offence cases where a person is tried on the testimony of a complainant alone, the law requires that the complainant's evidence be unusually convincing before an accused can be convicted.

This means that the witness's testimony must be so convincing that the prosecution's case is proven beyond reasonable doubt solely on the basis of the evidence given.

The AGC also said that Thuraisingam's claims that the woman lied about the molestation were "misleading and regrettable".

The prosecution's decision was not on the basis that the woman had been untruthful about the alleged molestation, the AGC said.

It also said that Thuraisingam had earlier indicated during the pre-trial conference that he intended to apply and make submissions for the gag order on the woman to be lifted, and for her identity to be made public.

But when the matter was heard in open court on Aug 16 last year, he accused her of being a liar before abruptly changing his position, withdrawing the application and suddenly agreeing with the prosecution that there was no basis to lift the gag order.

Because of this, the prosecution did not present its oral arguments, and the court did not make a ruling on the allegations that the woman had been deliberately untruthful.

"(The) AGC has written to Mr Thuraisingam asking for an explanation of his conduct set out above as an officer of the court," it said.

Responding to the AGC's statements, Mr Thuraisingam's firm said that it was not true that its previous statements were misleading.