SINGAPORE: A High Court judge on Tuesday (May 23) awarded a partial legal victory to the father of a man who killed himself after sexual misconduct allegations led to disciplinary action by a local debate organisation.
Mr Lucas Li Guangsheng died by suicide aged 31 on Aug 8, 2018, after the Debate Association (Singapore) issued a public statement about the allegations, without naming him.
Mr Lawrence Li See Kit, acting as his son's personal representative, sued the Debate Association in a civil trial that spanned two years.
Delivering his verdict, Justice See Kee Oon said the crux of the plaintiff's claim was that the association's "grossly negligent and reckless" actions caused his son to suffer an "acute stress reaction" that led to his suicide.
These actions included permanently banning him from all of the association's events and notifying partner organisations to prevent him from entering any competitions or camps he co-organised.
The judge found that these actions were unlawful because the Debate Association had acted beyond the powers delineated in its constitution, and because these actions breached the "rules of natural justice" – in particular rules for a fair hearing and against bias.
"Having reviewed the findings in the audit report, the defendant decided to prioritise the safety and protection of its members, especially those who were minors," Justice See said of the Debate Association's actions.
"Its primary motivation was to act responsibly, decisively and swiftly in taking preventive and remedial measures. The defendant's decision cannot be faulted in this regard.
"But in taking the steps the defendant did, the need for the deceased to be afforded his right to be heard and to avoid apparent bias through prejudgment was unfortunately obscured. The process was thus unfair and prejudicial to him."
The judge accordingly ordered declarations that the ban and notice against Mr Lucas Li were unlawful, and that they should be set aside.
He dismissed the plaintiff's other claims, including all claims for damages, rejecting arguments that the association was negligent and breached its duty of care towards Mr Lucas Li.
"It is easy to look back on this incident with the benefit and perspicacity of hindsight and suggest that the defendant could have done a better job to ensure a balance between the deceased's interests and securing the safety of its members," said the judge.
"Its primary motivation was to act responsibly, decisively and swiftly in taking preventive and remedial measures. The defendant's decision cannot be faulted in this regard.
"But in taking the steps the defendant did, the need for the deceased to be afforded his right to be heard and to avoid apparent bias through prejudgment was unfortunately obscured. The process was thus unfair and prejudicial to him."
The judge accordingly ordered declarations that the ban and notice against Mr Lucas Li were unlawful, and that they should be set aside.
He dismissed the plaintiff's other claims, including all claims for damages, rejecting arguments that the association was negligent and breached its duty of care towards Mr Lucas Li.
"It is easy to look back on this incident with the benefit and perspicacity of hindsight and suggest that the defendant could have done a better job to ensure a balance between the deceased's interests and securing the safety of its members," said the judge.
He noted the association did not dispute that "various aspects could have been better handled".
"In my view, however, the defendant did not fall below the standard of care required of it in communicating and publicising the outcome of the investigations and disciplinary proceedings by way of the EXCO statement."
Between 2012 and 2014, Mr Lucas Li was the founder and director of the Debate Development Initiative (DDI), the Debate Association's in-house training and development programme for young debaters.
On Aug 7, 2018, the Debate Association's executive committee issued a statement titled "Allegations of Misconduct Against A Former Director of the Debate Development Initiative", which was published on its website and the Singapore Debaters Facebook page.
Without naming Mr Lucas Li, this statement alleged inappropriate behaviour by a former director, who moderated a WhatsApp chat group called DDI Darkness where he allegedly exchanged sexual comments with chat group participants.
The statement claimed that the ex-director pressured a member of the chat group to exchange explicit photos through a private chat, which culminated in a "physical sexual encounter" that he initiated.
It stated that in light of the findings of an "audit report" made by "two senior members of the debate community", the executive committee decided to ban the ex-director from all the association's events, notify partner organisations and file a police report.
Mr Lucas Li suffered from cyclothymia, a mental disorder that involves periods of depression and mood swings, as an undergraduate.
He was also diagnosed with major depressive disorder after being referred to the Institute of Mental Health in October 2017 for suicidal thoughts.
The judge said that the Debate Association had known about Mr Lucas Li's struggles with mental health, even though precise details may not have been known to each executive committee member.
JUDGE'S FINDINGS
In his findings, Justice See stressed that the court was not being asked to determine the merits of the sexual misconduct allegations, which formed part of the "factual backdrop" leading to Mr Lucas Li's decision to take his own life.
His ruling largely focused on whether the Debate Association's disciplinary actions were within the scope of its constitution, and whether it had acted fairly.
"I accept the defendant's explanation that these steps were justifiably taken as swift and decisive measures to ensure the safety of the students under its charge, especially those who were minors," said the judge.
But he found that the association's constitution did not set out, either in express or implied terms, any power of the executive committee or a general meeting of members to take disciplinary action with penal consequences against members.
"Therefore, I am of the view that the defendant acted (beyond the powers of) the constitution in imposing the ban and communicating the notice to partners," said the judge.
Justice See also said that Mr Lucas Li was not given the opportunity to address the allegations against him or to defend himself against the disciplinary actions. He was also not informed of the investigations taken prior to these actions.
The judge accepted that the association "acted swiftly and decisively ... to preserve the safety of the students under its charge, especially the minors", and that it was reasonable to prioritise urgent action.
But he found that the fair hearing rule was breached as there was no express indication to Mr Lucas Li that he was allowed to make representations or appeal the decision, and there was no indication that he himself had contemplated such a possibility at the time.
Justice See added that "the plain and obvious inference is that the defendant had prejudged" Mr Lucas Li. This could be seen from the fact that the association did not ask to receive or consider any evidence from him before deciding to ban him and notify partner organisations.
"I am of the view that this prejudgment by the defendant amounted to apparent bias," said the judge.
Justice See did not order the association to make an apology to the plaintiff, reasoning that this was not appropriate as the association had "demonstrated a lack of acknowledgement of any wrongdoing on its part".
"That being said, given my finding that the defendant had breached the rules of natural justice, I venture to suggest that it would not be out of order for the defendant to consider extending an apology to the plaintiff and his family in the spirit of reconciliation."
REACTION TO VERDICT
Reacting to the verdict, Mr Joel Law, current president of the Debate Association, said he was relieved that the court dismissed most of the plaintiff's claims and did not award damages to the plaintiff.
"In particular, we are heartened by the court's findings that the association had acted responsibly, decisively and swiftly in taking preventive and remedial measures in prioritising the safety and protection of its members, especially those who were minors, rather than with any malice against the deceased," said Mr Law.
"In fact, this has always been the association's motivations, given that we and our partners regularly work with children. Furthermore, we are glad that the court agreed with us that the association did have factual grounds to be concerned about the deceased’s impropriety towards minors under our charge."
He added that the association was unlikely to appeal the decision. The Debate Association is represented by Mr Darren Tan and Mr Silas Siew of Invictus Law Corporation.
Mr Tan said the court's finding was "a clear vindication that the association had harboured no malice towards the deceased".
Mr Lucas Li's father, represented by lawyer Mr Paul Ong, told CNA: "I am heartened that the verdict affirms my view that my son was unfairly treated by the association and that the laws of natural justice were breached.
"As suggested by the judge, I hope the association will extend an apology to my family and I for how Lucas was treated. We will study the verdict further and consider next steps."
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...gation-suicide-lucas-li-verdict-court-3508346
