Lawyer given conditional warning for breaching gag order over doctor acquitted of molestation

SINGAPORE — Lawyer Johannes Hadi has been issued a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution for breaching a court-imposed gag order, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said on Wednesday (Sept 14).

In response to queries from TODAY, AGC said that it applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal for the two charges Mr Hadi faced.

This was in relation to Dr Yeo Sow Nam, an anaesthetist who was acquitted of molestation charges in a high-profile case last year. Mr Hadi was part of Dr Yeo's defence team.

AGC said that the prosecution carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including that Mr Hadi was a junior lawyer who acted under the instructions and supervision of veteran lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam. Mr Hadi is an associate at Thuraisingam’s eponymous law firm.

AGC said that if Mr Hadi re-offends, he may be prosecuted on the same charges.

“Given Mr Hadi’s role in the incident, a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution was issued to him,” AGC added.

A discharge not amounting to an acquittal means that the charges can be reinstated and Mr Hadi can still be prosecuted in the future should new evidence emerge, for instance.

Thuraisingam was fined S$4,000 on Aug 30 after pleading guilty to instructing Mr Hadi on two occasions to distribute transcripts of Dr Yeo’s trial to the media, in which crucial information that could lead to the victim's identity was not removed.

The transcripts contained the complainant’s age, date of birth, employer as well as her occupation at the time and during the time of the alleged offences, which the prosecution said was likely to lead to the complainant being identified.

They also revealed the identities of the colleagues of the complainants who served as witnesses in the proceedings, as well as the name of the product marketed by the complainant and her relationship with Dr Yeo.

The court previously heard that she was not a patient, employee or fellow doctor. She had alleged that Dr Yeo molested her four times at his clinic in late 2017.

Thuraisingam led Dr Yeo’s three-man defence team, which included Mr Hadi, who had been practising law for two years at the time. 

When Thuraisingam was fined, the sentencing judge said that regardless of Dr Yeo's acquittal, by providing details of the accuser to the media, the lawyers' actions risked "re-victimising" her.

WHAT HAPPENED

On March 5 last year, Thuraisingam sought the trial judge’s permission to distribute the transcripts of the proceedings to the press.

The judge granted the application on the basis that Thuraisingam would take the necessary steps to remove any identifying information and that there would be no breach of the gag order.

On March 16, Thuraisingam told Mr Hadi over email to black out the complainant’s name and to remind the press not to print her name, without instructing him to redact other critical information.

Mr Hadi did as he was told and sent the transcripts of the first four days of the trial to reporters from Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

On June 26, the prosecution applied to withdraw the molestation charges against Dr Yeo at a pre-trial conference. At that conference, Thuraisingam indicated that he would be applying for the gag order to be lifted.

Ahead of the court hearing over this matter, written submissions were filed on Aug 4 by the defence and the prosecution. 

The prosecution contested the lifting of the gag order and instead applied to enlarge its scope to also include the identities of the prosecution witnesses who were the complainant’s colleagues, the names of the products marketed by the complainant, her relationship with Dr Yeo and the name of her company at the time of the alleged offences.

Thuraisingam then told Mr Hadi to distribute to the press the transcripts of the trial, which by then had included transcripts for the fifth day, as well as the defence’s written submissions for the gag order to be lifted.

The senior lawyer did not instruct Mr Hadi to remove information that would likely lead to the complainant’s identification.

Mr Hadi redacted the documents as he did before, with only the complainant’s name concealed, and sent them to reporters from seven different news companies.

Included in the transcripts was a note saying: “All transcripts have been redacted pursuant to the gag order in place at the time of writing in relation to the identification of the complainant.”

At the court hearing on Aug 16 during which the judge allowed the prosecution to withdraw the charges against Dr Yeo, Thuraisingam also withdrew his application to have the gag order lifted.

The judge also granted the prosecution’s request to have the gag order expanded after Thuraisingam said that he took “no position” on that matter.

Those convicted of breaching a State Courts order can be fined up to S$5,000 or jailed for up to 12 months, or punished with both.