SINGAPORE — A police officer investigating the case where a doctor allegedly raped his patient during a late-night consultation was accused on Wednesday (May 9) of fabricating evidence in her report.

On the eighth day of the trial, Mr Edmond Pereira, the defence lawyer for general practitioner Wee Teong Boo, cast aspersions on Assistant Superintendent Carol Ong’s account of events.

The lawyer also accused ASP Ong of being “intimidating and threatening” towards Wee while taking the doctor’s statement.

The 26-year-old victim, who was a student at the time, has accused Wee of raping her on Dec 30, 2015, during a late-night consultation at his clinic, Wee's Clinic & Surgery, at Bedok North Avenue 2.

She was getting her lower abdomen checked by Wee when she alleged that he molested her, before raping her.

Taking the stand on Wednesday, ASP Ong testified that she first told Wee about the nature of the complaint against him when she, along with two other officers from the police’s Serious Sexual Crimes Branch (SSCB), paid a second visit to Wee’s clinic the day after the alleged incident.

They had returned about an hour after their first visit as he was busy with patients then. She then told Wee that he needed to provide a blood sample for DNA profiling.

According to ASP Ong, Wee refused, saying: “Why should I give my blood sample? You can only take my DNA if you find sperm in (the victim’s private parts), but I do not think you can.”

That stood out to ASP Ong, who has worked at the SSCB for more than a decade. She noted that, from her years of experience, those who did not commit the crime would say they are sure the police will not be able to find their DNA. “There was an uncertainty in his statement,” she added.

But during cross-examination, Mr Pereira accused her of lying.

The lawyer said no one had told Wee about the nature of the victim’s complaint. Mr Pereira also claimed that another officer, not ASP Ong, had asked Wee for his blood sample, which Wee voluntarily gave.

Mr Pereira further questioned why ASP Ong had not noted the incident in her investigation diary, if it had made such an impression on her. ASP Ong said she only recorded the actions the police took, not the conversations between them and Wee, and instead made a note of it “at the back of my head”.

“I put to you that you made up evidence just to throw some doubt in this court on my client’s actions,” Mr Pereira told her.

On Wee’s instructions, the defence lawyer then fleshed out his client’s version of events of what happened after he was brought to the police lock-up at the Police Cantonment Complex.

According to Mr Pereira, ASP Ong told Wee to admit to his alleged crime and cooperate with the police, as the victim’s evidence was “very strong” and DNA evidence would prove that Wee did it. It was said the officer told the doctor that it would be easier on him and his family if he helped the police “close the case fast”.

The next day, on Jan 1, 2016, ASP Ong visited Wee again in lock-up to record his statement. Mr Pereira said that ASP Ong told his client to admit he had raped the victim and should apologise.

“You kept emphasising: ‘You’re a doctor, you should know. Your DNA will be in her and her DNA will be on you. If you admit, I can quietly deal with the case and your family will be spared the publicity…. You cannot run away,’” Mr Pereira told ASP Ong in court, accusing her of being “intimidating and threatening” to Wee.

ASP Ong denied the defence’s sequence of events.

To Mr Pereira’s allegation that Wee had told her he was tired, had not eaten and had not taken his medicine for his hypoglycemia, ASP Ong told the court that no such conversation happened.

Mr Pereira also said Wee had asked to have his lawyer present when he signed his statement, but ASP Ong told him lawyers were not allowed there.

During re-examination, Deputy Public Prosecutor Amanda Chong asked ASP Ong if anyone had told her that Wee was feeling unwell. The officer said that no one had told her so, as far as she remembered.

Justice Chua Lee Ming then questioned her on why the police did not take swabs from Wee’s genital area as well.

When ASP Ong replied that Wee had already showered and any evidence would have been washed away, the doctor blurted out: “That’s not true, sir, not true.” He was subsequently shushed.

Justice Chua asked how the police knew for sure that Wee had showered. “If I remember correctly, we did ask if he showered,” ASP Ong replied.

The trial continues on Thursday, with the defence calling defendant Wee to the stand.