Molest acquittal case: Veteran lawyer penalised over unredacted transcripts sent to press
Mr Eugene Thuraisingam had requested permission to send transcripts of the trial to the press, but did not get his associate to redact all information that could identify the complainant.
File photo of lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam outside the Supreme Court in November 2019. (File photo: TODAY)
Lydia Lam
12 Aug 2024 03:37PM (Updated: 12 Aug 2024 04:21PM)
SINGAPORE: Veteran lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam has been ordered to pay a penalty of S$1,000 (US$755) over the distribution of unredacted transcripts to the press in a molestation case.
The transcripts contained information that was likely to identify the complainant – a woman accusing a doctor of molestation.
Dr Yeo Sow Nam, then 52, was acquitted of all counts of molesting the complainant in August 2021 after she admitted to lying.
However, the defence team was found to have breached the case's gag order by sending unredacted transcripts to the press.
The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc), which oversees local lawyers and their conduct, referred the case for disciplinary action against lead lawyer Mr Thuraisingam.
According to a report by the disciplinary tribunal made available last Thursday (Aug 8), Mr Thuraisingam was cleared of four charges linked to Dr Yeo's case.
These include misleading the court, abusing court process by arguing to lift a gag order and making submissions in open court before members of the press to influence public opinion, and mischaracterising the complainant's conduct.
The tribunal acquitted Mr Thuraisingam over the four charges, finding that they were not made out.
The tribunal said the lawyer's gag order application was "entirely proper" at the time when it was made.
He did so in the interest of open justice, as well as to vindicate Dr Yeo, said the tribunal.
Mr Thuraisingam had submitted that he "strongly and reasonably believed that it was important for members of the press and the public to be apprised of the complainant's perjury".
Mr Thuraisingam pleaded guilty to a single charge of publishing transcripts of the proceedings by instructing his associate Mr Johannes Hadi to distribute the transcripts to the press.
Dr Yeo was charged with four counts of molestation against the complainant – who remains protected by the gag order – in February 2020.
The media reports on the case caused Dr Yeo "much distress", the tribunal noted.
Dr Yeo was represented by another lawyer, with Mr Thuraisingam taking over in late August 2020.
The case went to trial in March 2021 before District Judge Ng Peng Hong, taking place "in camera" or away from the public and media.
At all times, the identity of the complainant was protected by a gag order issued in February 2020, prohibiting the publication of her name, address, photo or any evidence or thing likely to lead to her identification.
On Mar 5, 2021, a friend and adviser to Dr Yeo sent an email to Mr Thuraisingam. He said he was "trawling for any inaccurate news reports" on an online forum known as Sammyboy, and said that posts on the forum were "likely to (have) come from the complainant's side".
Dr Yeo wanted to know what could be done about posts on Sammyboy, to which Mr Hadi advised Dr Yeo to "ignore the comments on puerile forums like sammyboy.com", saying that they should "pick (their) battles in the media wisely".
That same day, Mr Thuraisingam sought Judge Ng's permission to distribute trial transcripts of the in-camera proceedings to members of the press.
He gave an undertaking to the court that any distributed transcripts would be redacted and contain warnings about the gag order in place.
The judge granted his application, on the basis that the necessary redactions would be made and that the gag order would not be breached.
On Mar 16, 2021, Mr Thuraisingam informed Mr Hadi via email to "remember to black out" the complainant's name, and to remind the press that they could not print her name.
However, he did not instruct Mr Hadi to redact all information likely to lead to the identification of the complainant.
Subsequently, Mr Hadi redacted only the complainant's name from the transcripts and emailed them to members of the press from Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.
As a result, the transcripts sent to the press contained unredacted information that could be used to identify the complainant, including her age, date of birth, occupation and employer.
The tribunal said this was in contravention of the gag order, an offence under Section 7(4) of the State Courts Act.
On Jun 26, 2021, the lead prosecutor on the case called Mr Thuraisingam to tell him that the prosecution intended to apply for a discharge amounting to acquittal.
Mr Thuraisingam updated Dr Yeo and sought his approval for an open court hearing. The defence team wanted this because they also wanted to apply for the gag order to be lifted.
Submissions on the gag order application were uploaded by both sides. In Mr Thuraisingam's written submissions, the defence team alleged that the complainant was a "self-confessed perjurer" and that she had admitted to knowingly and deliberately lying in court.
In August 2021, Mr Thuraisingam instructed Mr Hadi to distribute the defence team's written submissions for the gag order application, as well as some new transcripts from the trial, to the press.
He did not ask Mr Hadi to redact information likely to lead to the identification of the complainant.
On Aug 11, 2021, Mr Hadi emailed the documents to members of the press from Singapore Press Holdings, Mediacorp, the South China Morning Post and others.
Eventually, Mr Thuraisingam did not go ahead with the application to lift the gag order. The prosecution asked for the gag order to be upheld.
As a result of the publication of information that could identify the complainant, Mr Thuraisingam was charged in court in April 2022 for breaching the gag order.
He pleaded guilty and was fined S$4,000 by the court.
The Attorney-General then referred the case to LawSoc for a separate disciplinary inquiry into Mr Thuraisingam's conduct as a lawyer.
The tribunal found that there was "no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action" for Mr Thuraisingam's uncontested charge, but said he should be ordered to pay a penalty of S$1,000, on top of costs and disbursements of S$2,000.
Mr Thuraisingam declined comment when approached by CNA.
