TRANSCRIPTS SENT TO PRESS
On Mar 5, 2021, the fifth day time of trial, Thuraisingam sought the test judge’s permission to distribute the transcripts of the proceedings, which were in private, in order to members of the media.
He offered an undertaking towards the court that any kind of distribution of the transcripts to the media would certainly carry redactions of the woman’s identity and a warning about the fun order in place.
The trial judge granted Thuraisingam’s software on the basis the lawyer would make the necessary redactions plus there would be no breach of the gag order.
On Mar 16, 2021, following the team received the particular transcripts for the initial four days of trial, Thuraisingam sent Hadi instructions over e-mail about distributing them to the media.
“Pls remember to black out complainant’s title and remind the particular press that they are not able to print the complainant’s name, ” this individual wrote, referring to the woman who was the complainant against Dr Yeo.
“Explain that individuals applied for an purchase that we be allowed to furnish the press with the transcripts, ” he added.
Thuraisingam did not instruct Hadi to redact all information likely to lead to the identification of the woman, Deputy Public Prosecutors Sivakumar Ramasamy and Sivanathan Jheevanesh said.
Following the older lawyer’s instructions, Hadi redacted only the female’s name from the transcripts and emailed these to journalists from Mediacorp and Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) upon Mar 16, 2021.
In his email messages to media, Hadi wrote: “We are now releasing transcripts for you, but with the complainant’s name redacted as the gag order with regards to the complainant’s identity remains in place. ”
PROSECUTION’S BET TO EXPAND FUN ORDER
On Jun 26, 2021, the prosecution in Dr Yeo’s situation applied to withdraw the particular charges against the doctor. At the same time, Thuraisingam indicated that the defence would apply for the fun order to be raised.
A listening to was scheduled on Aug 16, 2021 for the charges to be withdrawn and both sides to make their arguments on the gag order lifting program.
In preparation for the hearing, the prosecution filed written submissions contesting the gag order lifting application on August 4, 2021.
The prosecution asked for to expand the scope of the gag order to include the identities of witnesses who were the woman’s colleagues, the name of the product marketed by the woman, her relationship with Dr Yeo and the name of her company at the time.
Before the hearing, between August 4 and August 11, 2021, Thuraisingam instructed Hadi to distribute transcripts of the trial and the defence’s written submissions applying to lift the fun order to members of the media.
Thuraisingam again did not instruct Hadi to redact all information prone to lead to the woman’s id, said Mr Sivakumar and Mr Sivanathan.
Accordingly, Hadi emailed a bundle of the transcripts and distribution to journalists through Mediacorp, SPH, South China Morning Publish, Mothership, Yahoo Information, The China Press Malaysia and The Online Citizen on Aug 11, 2021.
The front page from the bundle carried the notation: “All transcripts have been redacted pursuant to the gag order in place at the time of composing in relation to the recognition of the complainant. ”
However , the transcripts contained unredacted information likely to lead to the woman’s identification, including her age, day of birth, current occupation, current company and occupation at the time of the alleged molestation.
The transcripts also contained information that was the subject of the particular prosecution’s application in order to expand the scope of the gag purchase.
At the listening to on Aug 16, 2021, Dr Yeo was given a release amounting to an acquittal after the prosecution withdrew all charges against him.
Dr Yeo’s lawyers after that withdrew the application in order to lift the fun order. When the test judge asked for the particular defence’s position at the prosecution’s application to expand the fun order, Thuraisingam mentioned: “If the prosecution says that it’s essential to protect the supposed complainant’s identity, all of us take no position. ”
The particular trial judge after that granted the extended gag order, which remains in force.