Doctor accused of molestation, rape cleared of all charges

General practitioner Wee Teong Boo, who was accused of raping and molesting a patient at his Bedok clinic, was completely cleared of all charges yesterday by the Court of Appeal.

After being acquitted, Dr Wee, accompanied by his family, walked out of the courtroom to applause from supporters waiting outside, some of whom spontaneously hugged one another before being reminded of safe distancing rules.

Dr Wee, 69, declined to comment when approached by reporters.

He was originally tried for molesting the patient, then a 23-year-old student, during a medical examination in November 2015, and for raping her during another visit one month later.

Last year, Justice Chua Lee Ming cleared him of rape because there was reasonable doubt as to whether it would have been physically possible for Dr Wee, who had erectile dysfunction, to have sexual intercourse with the woman unaided.

The High Court judge convicted him of sexual assault instead, based on Dr Wee's admission that he had inserted his ungloved fingers into the patient in what he said was a pelvic examination. Dr Wee was then sentenced to 10 years' jail for sexual assault and molestation.

Yesterday, the apex court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Steven Chong and Belinda Ang, upheld the rape acquittal, saying that they were troubled by many aspects of the patient's account.

Among other things, the court found "incredible" the woman's testimony that she initially believed Dr Wee's actions, such as touching her genital area, were part of a medical examination.

The court explained that to convict a person in a case that relies heavily on victim testimony, the accuser's account has to be "unusually convincing" to prove the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The woman had seen Dr Wee, her regular doctor, on Nov 25, 2015, for gastric discomfort.

She said he was stroking her genital area while examining her but thought it might be part of the examination.

She said she felt assured that it was a legitimate examination after she saw another doctor at a polyclinic who found a lump near her groin area.

On Dec 30, she returned to see Dr Wee over her frequent urination and a genital itch.

She said he stood between her legs and she felt something "poke" her while he was moving and holding both her legs with his hands.

The woman said it was only when he pulled her into a semi-upright position that she realised his genitals were partly inside her.

Delivering the court's judgment, which referred to the patient as V, the Chief Justice said: "We find it impossible to understand how V could have thought that the alleged conduct of Dr Wee could ever have been explicable on the basis that it was part of a medical examination.

"How could he possibly have been examining anything if his head and chest were upright and both his hands were supporting V's knees?

"And how could he have been 'poking' anything into V that was related to a medical examination when both his hands were being used to hold V up?"

Of V sitting up and allegedly seeing the doctor's genitals still inside her, the Chief Justice said: "How could she possibly have imagined that this might be part of the medical examination?"

Given that there were clinic assistants and other patients in the clinic, the court said it was implausible that Dr Wee would rape her - unless he believed he could get away with it because she would not even know that she was being raped and would not scream for help.

In overturning Dr Wee's molestation conviction, the court said it was troubled by the 36 days it took the patient to make a report after the alleged offence.

The court had difficulty accepting the woman's testimony that it suddenly dawned on her, after making a police report for rape, that she had been molested during the earlier visit.

The apex court said the High Court had erred in law by convicting Dr Wee of sexual assault because it rested on a version of facts that was "fundamentally incompatible" with the case mounted by the prosecution and the testimony of the woman, who repeatedly insisted that she saw his genitals inside her.

In overturning the sexual assault conviction, the court said it was highly prejudicial to Dr Wee as he did not have the chance to defend himself against the charge.

Dr Wee's lawyers from Eugene Thuraisingam law firm told The Straits Times: "We are happy that the hard work put into the case has paid off with an innocent man being acquitted by the court."