In a molestation case, veteran lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam was ordered to pay a fine of S$ 1, 000 ( US$ 755 ) for the distribution of unredacted transcripts to the press.
The plaintiff, a girl who had accused a doctor of molestation, was likely to be identified in the transcripts.
Dr Yeo Sow Nam, next 52, was acquitted of all matters of assaulting the claimant in August 2021 , after she admitted to lying.
However, it was discovered that the defense team had sent the media unredacted transcripts in violation of the joke order.
The lead lawyer, Mr. Thuraisingam, was subject to disciplinary action in a case brought by the Law Society of Singapore ( LawSoc ), which regulates local attorneys and their conduct.
Mr. Thuraisingam was spared of four counts related to Dr. Yeo’s case, according to a report released by the disciplinary tribunal last Thursday ( Aug 8 ).
These include deceiving the jury, using the court system by challenging the gag order, making submissions in open court before journalists, and mischaracterizing the plaintiff’s behavior.
The court determined that Mr. Thuraisingam was innocent of the four fees because they were false.
The court said the judge’s gag order app was “entirely right” at the time when it was made.
He did but in the interest of empty justice, as well as to justify Dr Yeo, said the judge.
According to Mr. Thuraisingam, he” strongly and fairly believed that it was critical for members of the press and the general public to be informed of the claimant’s perjury.”
By ordering his associate, Mr. Johannes Hadi, to spread the records to the press, Mr. Thuraisingam admitted guilt to one of the charges of publishing the proceedings ‘ records.
WHAT HAPPENED
In February 2020, Dr. Yeo was charged with four counts of rape against the plaintiff, who is still protected by the giggle order.
The press reviews on the situation caused Dr Yeo “much distress”, the judge noted.
Another attorney assisted Dr. Yeo, who will succeed him in soon August 2020.
The situation went to trial in March 2021 before District Judge Ng Peng Hong, taking area “in cameras” or away from the public and press.
At all times, the personality of the claimant was protected by a gag order issued in February 2020, prohibiting the release of her name, address, pictures or any information or item likely to lead to her recognition.
On Mar 5, 2021, a friend and director 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 inquired about what could be done with comments on Sammyboy, and Mr. Hadi advised Dr. Yeo to “ignore the comments on puerile forums like sammyboy.com,” stating that they should “pick ( their ) battles in the media wisely.”
Mr. Thuraisingam demanded Judge Ng’s permission to give the media access to trial transcripts from the in-camera proceedings that time.
He promised the judge that any records that were distributed may be redacted and contain details about the joke order in place.
The judge accepted his request on the grounds that the joke order would not be violated and that the important redactions may be made.
On Mar 16, 2021, Mr Thuraisingam informed Mr Hadi via e-mail to “remember to dark out” the plaintiff’s title, and to remind the media that they could not write her name.
Yet, he did not instruct Mr. Hadi to redact any information that might lead to the complainant’s recognition.
Eventually, Mr Hadi redacted just the claimant’s brand from the records and emailed them to members of the press from Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.
As a result, the records sent to the press contained unredacted data that could be used to determine the plaintiff, including her time, date of birth, job and boss.
According to the tribunal, this was in violation of Section 7( 4 ) of the State Courts Act, which prohibits the use of a gag order.
The prosecution’s lead prosecutor called Mr. Thuraisingam on June 26, 2021, to inform him that the trial intended to file an indictment discharge application.
Mr. Thuraisingam updated Dr. Yeo and requested his consent for an empty court hearing. The defense team wanted this because they also wanted to have the gag get lifted.
Both parties uploaded their proposals to the joke purchase program. In Mr Thuraisingam’s written submissions, the army group alleged that the claimant was a” self-confessed philanderer” and that she had admitted to knowingly and intentionally lying in jury.
Mr. Thuraisingam gave Mr. Hadi the order to release the defense team’s written submissions for the gag order application as well as some fresh trial transcripts to the press in August 2021.
He declined to request that Mr. Hadi redact information that might have helped the complainant be identified.
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 requested that the gag order be upheld.
In April of this year, Mr. Thuraisingam was charged in court with breaking the gag order after information that was made available that could have identified the complainant.
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.
Mr. Thuraisingam should be ordered to pay a fine of S$ 1, 000 in addition to costs and payments of S$ 2, 000, but the tribunal determined there was” no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action” for the uncontested charge.  ,
When CNA got in touch with him, Mr. Thuraisingam declined to comment.