Gag order lifted on name of man who made voyeuristic clips

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon yesterday upheld a lower court decision to lift a gag order on the name of a student from a top British university who had filmed voyeuristic videos of several women.

Colin Chua Yi Jin, 23, had pleaded guilty on July 29 to seven counts of insulting the women's modesty and an offence under the Films Act.

The gag order remains on other details that could lead to the identification of the victims, including their relationship to Chua as well as the name of his university, where he started studying in 2018.

The clips he recorded involved 11 women, whom he knew personally, in Singapore and Britain between 2015 and 2018.

Most of the videos were taken at gatherings at his residence. The victims were secretly filmed while they were showering, changing or relieving themselves.

Yesterday, Chief Justice Menon said courts have the power to impose gag orders to protect victims. "A gag order has nothing to do with the benefit of accused persons."

Chua's lawyer, Mr Kalidass Murugaiyan, had gone to the High Court to object to the gag order being lifted - but the Chief Justice said it was a hopeless application.

Chief Justice Menon noted that the victims spoke with one voice and wanted Chua's identity revealed, despite the risk of their own identities being exposed.

"His interest counts for nothing," said the Chief Justice.

Chua was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs, after Deputy Public Prosecutor Nicholas Khoo said the application was "borderline frivolous".

Chua targeted his first victim, then 18, on Dec 2, 2015, when they were sharing a room at a hotel in Orchard Road with others. He placed a recording device in the toilet and it recorded a video of her showering.

On Dec 23, 2016, Chua hosted a Christmas gathering at his then residence. He placed a recording device in the toilet and filmed the second victim relieving herself.

When he was first charged on Oct 2, 2019, with two counts, a gag order was imposed to protect the women's identities. The gag order was extended to cover his name. Another 17 charges were later brought against him.

On Jan 14 last year, a district judge rejected the prosecution's request to lift the gag order on Chua's identity - there were then 12 victims, and only 10 had supported the move.

One of the remaining two victims later changed her mind. On June 8 this year, the prosecution withdrew four charges, including the one involving the other victim. This meant Chua now faced charges involving 11 victims, who all supported revealing his identity.

On July 29, the prosecution succeeded in its second attempt to lift the gag order on Chua's identity.

It said there was public interest in identifying the accused and he should not be allowed to hide behind the gag order.

Chua has been found to be unsuitable for probation. No date has been set for sentencing.

It is rare for gag orders to be lifted as such orders covering an accused are imposed when there is a need to protect a witness' identity.

In November last year, the High Court lifted a gag order in the case of Johnboy John Teo, who had killed his two-year-old daughter.

The prosecution said there was public interest in identifying the offender and no public interest in suppressing the identity of the dead victim.

---

Victims felt anguished and powerless that perpetrator could hide in anonymity

The 11 women who were secretly filmed by Colin Chua Yi Jin between 2015 and 2018 supported the lifting of a gag order on his name, at the risk of their own identities being exposed. This is what some of them said in their victim impact statements:

"I feel anguished when I found out that there is a gag order against the accused as he could 'hide' behind the gag order and continue with life as per normal."

"Not being aware of his crimes, I even encouraged him to meet my friend (the 11th victim), which (resulted in her) becoming another victim. This made me feel very guilty."

"I felt very worried and powerless when I saw the accused posting on social media with other female friends. I could not warn them because of the gag order on the accused's identity."

"In the days after news came out about the investigation, I distanced myself from him without knowing that he had filmed me too. He had the audacity to ask if we still wanted to be friends."

"I also feel that the gag order is meant to protect the victims and not the perpetrator. (But) I fear that even more people could be hurt by the accused as his identity is masked."