Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Doctor convicted of sexual assault: Appeal judges ‘troubled’ by patient’s conduct, version of events

SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal on Thursday (March 26) reserved its judgement on several appeals concerning a doctor who was convicted of sexually assaulting and molesting a long-time patient in his Bedok clinic, but acquitted of raping her.

Wee Teong Boo entering the Supreme Court on March 26, 2020. He was found guilty of assaulting and molesting a patient and is appealing against the conviction and sentence.

Wee Teong Boo entering the Supreme Court on March 26, 2020. He was found guilty of assaulting and molesting a patient and is appealing against the conviction and sentence.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal on Thursday (March 26) reserved its judgement on several appeals concerning a doctor who was convicted of sexually assaulting and molesting a long-time patient in his Bedok clinic, but acquitted of raping her.

Over the course of three hours on Thursday, two apex court judges grilled the prosecution on the patient’s conduct after the incidents, along with the version of events she had given during the high-profile trial in the High Court.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judge of Appeal Steven Chong — who presided over the hearing with Justice Belinda Ang — repeatedly stated that they were troubled by various aspects of the patient’s testimony.

The general practitioner in question, Wee Teong Boo, now 69, was sentenced to 10 years’ jail last year. He had been found guilty by a High Court judge of a reduced charge of sexual assault by penetration, as well as molestation on a separate earlier occasion.

The victim, now 27, had accused Wee of raping her during a late-night consultation at his clinic in Bedok on Dec 30, 2015. She had been seeking treatment for gastric problems, frequent urination and an itch on her genitals.

Wee’s version of events and his level of sexual function came under scrutiny during the trial. Among other things, his wife testified that he could not have raped his patient as his penis was “soft like a noodle” even when stimulated.

Justice Chua Lee Ming cleared Wee of rape after accepting medical evidence that he had erectile dysfunction at the time.

He then convicted the doctor of sexual assault by penetration with his fingers, rejecting Wee’s defence that he had been performing an internal pelvic examination while using his saliva as a lubricant.

Wee was also convicted of molesting the patient during a consultation on Nov 25, 2015.

The prosecution is appealing against the rape acquittal and sentence. Wee, represented by lawyers from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, is appealing against his convictions and sentence.

PATIENT GAVE WEE ‘BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT’

The prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Lee Lit Cheng, argued that the patient had been prepared to give Wee the “benefit of the doubt” when he touched her inappropriately on the first occasion.

The patient previously testified that she did not voice her discomfort then because she “trust(ed) him absolutely as a doctor”.

Wee, who examined her private parts without a glove, claimed to have found lumps on her pelvic joints.

When the victim went for a check-up later on Dec 5, 2015 at Bedok Polyclinic, she was reassured when the doctor there also found a lump on her joint, and she continued to trust Wee.

On that issue, Chief Justice Menon said he did not know why she thought it was conceivable for Wee to handle her private parts if she was there for a gastric complaint on the first occasion.

The patient had testified that Wee palpated her abdomen, before eventually going under her underwear to stroke her private parts. Chief Justice Menon questioned how she could have thought that was part of a medical examination at the time, then “retrospectively” found it alarming after the alleged rape a month later.

Judge of Appeal Chong also quizzed the prosecution on the patient’s conduct following the alleged rape. She had not appeared distraught to the clinic staff members, and had gone back to ask Wee for medication to delay her menstrual period for an upcoming trip.

“You have a person who is completely calm… It's invasion of her privacy at the highest possible level. I recognise that different people react differently. But here, we are talking about rape of a person who never had any sexual intercourse,” the judge noted.

As to the patient discarding her pantyliner and washing her panties after the alleged rape, Judge of Appeal Chong said that he found it “very troubling”.

“Based on her evidence, she knew contemporaneously that it was sex without consent. She then proceeded to destroy all the evidence that would have supported it,” he added.

PROSECUTION 'CANNOT DEFEND ASSAULT CONVICTION'

The judges questioned DPP Lee on why the patient did not reveal more about the incidents while speaking to her mother after the alleged rape.

The older woman had told her daughter it was “50-50” that Wee had violated her. The patient did not mention rape at all, and had asked her mother under what circumstances a doctor could examine her private parts.

In Wee’s defence, Mr Thuraisingam presented some reasons on why he alleged that the patient was not credible. Based on the polyclinic’s notes, she had complained of pain in her groin and did not mention lumps, but she testified during the trial that she went there to check out lumps.

She had also testified that her leg was on a nearby photocopier during the alleged rape, but Mr Thuraisingam argued that the machine was too far away from the examination bed for that to have happened.

“She goes to the police station and creates this story of rape. She makes no allegation of molestation to the police at first. She later makes it up to buttress her case that she had been raped by this doctor,” the lawyer alleged.

Towards the end of the hearing, Chief Justice Menon asked both the prosecution and defence if the High Court judge was “entitled” to convict Wee on a reduced charge.

Chief Justice Menon said that if the rape acquittal is upheld, the prosecution could not argue that Wee’s sexual assault conviction should stand, as they did not advance this alternative case during the trial. The patient had insisted that Wee penetrated her with his penis, not his fingers.

“You disavowed the central fact that digital penetration took place. How can you seek to defend a conviction on that?” Chief Justice Menon added.

Wee remains out on bail. The apex court will give its judgement at a later undetermined date.

Related topics

molest rape doctor court crime

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.