Police statements by doctor in fake vaccine case involving Iris Koh allowed in court: Judge
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Statements made by suspended doctor Jipson Quah (left) implicating his co-accused Iris Koh were deemed to be admissible in court.
ST PHOTOS: KELVIN CHNG
- Judge ruled Jipson Quah's police statements admissible, finding no evidence of police inducement or threats during questioning.
- Quah, Koh, and Quah's former clinic assistant are accused of falsely reporting Covid-19 vaccinations to the Health Promotion Board.
- Quah had already named 15 to 17 patients implicated in the case when his clinic was raided on Jan 21, 2022.
AI generated
SINGAPORE – The doctor at the centre of a trial over fake Covid-19 jabs had voluntarily given his statements to the police without threat, inducement or promise, a district judge ruled on July 28.
Six of the police statements made by suspended doctor Jipson Quah, 37, which implicate his two co-accused, Iris Koh and Thomas Chua Cheng Soon, were deemed admissible in court.
District Judge Paul Quan found that the police officers whom Quah accused of inducing him to make those statements had not done so.
Delivering his remarks on July 28, Judge Quan said any sort of inducement could well have been self-perceived by Quah.
The ruling marks the end of the ancillary hearing, or a trial within a trial, to determine the admissibility of statements Quah gave to investigation officer (IO) Ng Shiunn Jye from the Central Police Division.
The issue arose during the main trial concerning Quah, his former clinic assistant Chua, 43, and Koh, 49, founder of anti-vaccine group Healing the Divide.
Thomas Chua Cheng Soon was a former clinic assistant of Jipson Quah.
ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG
The trio allegedly conspired to falsely inform the Health Promotion Board that patients had received Covid-19 vaccinations when they had not.
During the main trial, Quah sought to throw out six of his 11 police statements on the basis that they had been recorded under threat, inducement or promise by the authorities.
The disputed statements were recorded between Jan 22 and 29 in 2022.
Quah claimed IO Ng told him he would not be released on bail unless he provided the names of 15 patients mentioned in his statements to the Ministry of Health.
He also spoke of a “secret meeting” he had with Superintendent Tan Pit Seng, head of investigation at the Central Police Division, while he was in custody.
He said that at the meeting, Supt Tan suggested that Quah could show remorse and his willingness to cooperate by naming Koh as the mastermind of the scheme.
Evaluating the interaction between IO Ng and Quah, Judge Quan said the IO gave factual replies to Quah’s queries.
The judge said: “Dr Quah was the one who initiated the conversation about bail, (and) IO Ng was merely responding to Dr Quah with factually neutral answers expected of him.”
Additionally, before Quah had a conversation with IO Ng, he had already named 15 to 17 patients implicated in the case when his clinic was raided on Jan 21, 2022.
“At best, Dr Quah was not certain of what IO Ng asked of him. Any inducement from (IO Ng) could well have been self-perceived,” Judge Quan said.
As for Quah’s conversation with Supt Tan, the judge found that the police superintendent had met Quah as there was due cause for concern due to the latter’s referral to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH).
Though some details of their meeting were disputed, Judge Quan found Supt Tan to be a credible and truthful witness and said the discrepancies were not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Noting that the discrepancies could be attributed to human fallibility, the judge added: “A perfect, watertight and ironclad case would otherwise have been suspicious for an uneventful meeting that took place more than three years ago.”
Contrary to Quah’s claim that Supt Tan asked him to name Koh as the mastermind, the judge pointed out that Quah had already implicated her in two earlier police statements.
He had also mentioned Koh’s involvement during a psychiatric assessment at IMH.
Quah, who was dressed in a navy three-piece suit and bow tie, listened to the ruling mostly with his eyes closed and brows furrowed.
After the six statements were admitted into evidence, the main trial resumed with a focus on the accuracy of these statements.
Taking the stand again, IO Ng testified that Quah confirmed these statements were accurate.
The IO said Quah was allowed to make amendments to the statements, such as adding facts and correcting grammatical errors.
Chua, who is self-represented but said he intends to engage a lawyer, originally said he would also like to contest the voluntariness of his police statements.
However, he later recanted and said he would no longer contest any of his police statements.
Judge Quan advised him not to make a hasty decision and told him to confirm his stance when the trial resumes on July 29.
