Veteran lawyer, associate charged with breaching gag order

Veteran criminal lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam and his associate Johannes Hadi were charged in a district court yesterday over the alleged sharing with members of the press unredacted information that could lead to the identification of a woman who had accused a doctor of molestation.

Both lawyers are from Thuraisingam's eponymous law firm, and they were part of a team that had represented Dr Yeo Sow Nam, then 52.

The woman had accused Dr Yeo of molesting her, and all details that could lead to her identification cannot be revealed due to a gag order.

After a trial, Dr Yeo was given a discharge amounting to an acquittal in August last year.

This means he cannot be charged again with the same offences.

Yesterday, Thuraisingam, 46, and Hadi, 31, were each handed two charges under the State Courts Act.

Around March last year, Thuraisingam allegedly instructed Hadi to distribute to the press transcripts of court proceedings containing unredacted information that could likely lead to the woman's identification.

Hadi is then said to have distributed them to the press on March 16 last year. Thuraisingam is accused of instructing Hadi to perform a similar act about five months later.

The younger lawyer allegedly distributed the transcripts to the press on Aug 11 last year.

The lawyers' pre-trial conference will take place on May 20.

As for the molestation case, Dr Yeo had been accused of molesting a 32-year-old woman on the 12th storey of Mount Elizabeth Hospital on the evening of Oct 9, 2017.

After a trial, the doctor, who was accused of four counts of molestation, had all of his charges withdrawn in August last year.

Upon the prosecution's application, District Judge Ng Peng Hong gave Dr Yeo a discharge amounting to an acquittal.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) later said that it would not be taking action against the woman.

In a statement on Aug 31 last year, the AGC said the prosecution had decided to withdraw the charges against Dr Yeo after deciding that her evidence would not be unusually convincing.

The AGC also said Thuraisingam's claims that the woman lied about the molestation were "misleading and regrettable".

The prosecution's decision was not on the basis that the woman had been untruthful about the alleged molestation, the AGC said.

Responding to the AGC's statements, Thuraisingam's firm said it was not true that its previous statements were misleading.