SINGAPORE: The Attorney General’s Office (AGC) announced Tuesday (August 31st).

On August 16, Dr. Yeo Sow Nam, 52, was released in an acquittal for fourfold indignation at the modesty of a 32-year-old woman Mount Elizabeth Hospital in October 2017.

The woman accused the doctor of hugging her, squeezing her waist, grabbing her breasts and kissing her head.

Prosecutors decided to break the charges after reviewing the evidence as well as the representations of the defense attorneys.

In its media release on Tuesday, the AGC stated that it “is unlikely that a case of false evidence can be found against the applicant”.

“The contradictions in the evidence the complainant was essentially not referring to the content of her allegations against Dr. Yeo for indignation of modesty, “said the AGC.

” There is also no evidence that the complainant made her presentation of the events isse in relation to the alleged disgrace of modesty.

“The point is that in this case the court cannot determine that the applicant lied or even made contradicting statements.”

The AGC said, if there is clear evidence that a person has lied under oath in a legal proceeding, they will “seriously consider” initiating a perjury case against the person such a process has been initiated and investigations are ongoing in other cases, “said the AGC.

” An indication of clear evidence is when the presiding court or tribunal believes that a witness has lied under oath.

“Even then, AGC must review all available evidence and assess whether a crime has been committed, as the views of the previous court will only be treated as its own opinion in a later trial. AGC still has to prove the crime beyond any doubt. Withdraw Yeo, not on the grounds that the woman failed to act on the alleged shame of modesty, the AGC said.

In cases of sexual offenses in which a defendant is brought to justice solely on the basis of a complainant’s testimony , the law requires that the applicant’s evidence be “unusually convincing” before a defendant can be convicted, the statement said.

Against Dr. Yeo was charged after several prosecutors ruled that the woman’s evidence was “very convincing” and that the charges against the doctor “could be proven,” the media statement said.

“During the March trial In 2021, however, some inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence in court emerged.

“Nonetheless, the prosecution concluded that the overall inconsistencies would likely affect the assessment of the applicant’s overall evidence,” the AGC said.

“There was a risk that the complainant did not reach the high threshold set in such cases to show that she was unusually convincing.” Yeo of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP issued a public statement shortly after his acquittal alleging that the complainant “admitted to lying in court about” material elements “of her allegations of indignation of modesty,” said AGC.

The woman denied defense lawyers’ allegations that she “lied and fabricated the alleged outrage of humility regarding all charges against Dr. Yeo,” added the AGC.

“Regarding the allegation, Dr. Yeo. Yeo squeezed her waist, the complainant said not consistently and clearly whether she was sitting or standing at the time of the alleged incident.

“She said first that she was sitting and later said she could not remember whether she was sitting or was standing. However, she disagreed with Dr. Yeo’s lawyers agreed when they accused her of fabricating the incident, “said the AGC.

” Regarding the applicant’s evidence of the alleged touching of Dr. Yeo on her hip, the applicant testified in cross-examination that she could no longer remember whether Dr. Yeo had patted, patted, or placed her hand on her hip.

“She claimed Dr. Yeo still touched her hip. When Dr. Yeo claimed Dr. Yeo did not touch her hips in any way, the complainant contradicted. What is important is that this alleged incident does not form the basis for any of the charges against Dr. Yeo educated. “

Defense attorney Eugene Thuraisingam also” used the legal process “to make similar allegations against the woman, the AGC said, adding that he” changed his position “before the court over the allegations could decide.

The public prosecutor had informed the defense lawyers in June 2021 that they had the charges against Dr. Yeo will withdraw at the next pre-trial conference in the chambers on June 29th.

“However, Mr. Thuraisingam asked at the pre-trial conference that the withdrawal be heard by the trial judge at a later date if it could be held in public” said the AGC.

“Mr. Thuraisingam also indicated at the pre-trial conference that he intended to seek and submit to the trial judge the revocation of the gag order for the publication of the applicant’s identity. The prosecution opposed this request in writing. ”

In cases of sexual offenses, the court usually issues gag orders to“ protect complainants from embarrassment, ”according to the AGC.

The matter was closed on August 16 tried in court when Mr Thuraisingam “extensively quoted from selections” and “accused the applicant of being a liar,” said the AGC.

“He suddenly agreed the prosecution agreed that there was no basis for the gag order to be overturned and withdrew his motion, “added the AGC.

” As a result, the prosecution failed to present its oral arguments and the court has not ruled on the allegations met that the complainant was deliberately untrue. “

The AGC wrote to Mr Thuraisingam for” an explanation of his conduct “as an official de s court.

In response to AGC’s testimony, Eugene Thuraisingam LLP said it was “not true” that the law firm’s statements were misleading.

“The applicant’s evidence was that Dr. Yeo molested her by touching her breasts with his palms facing outwards. She later agreed on cross-examination that Dr. Yeo was unable to do this because he was behind her, “said the law firm’s statement.

” The complainant stated that when she was Dr. Yeo molested her, raising her arms to the ceiling to try to get away from him.

“She also demonstrated this physically in court. She later cross-examined agreed that although she couldn’t really remember (d.

“She admitted that she lied when she told the court that she remembered seeing Dr. Yeo had his hand on her hip.

“She admitted that she told the court things she couldn’t remember, and that she was knowingly making false statements in court.

“She also admitted that she had lied so many times that she couldn’t remember when she was telling the truth and when she lied.

” She admitted that the evidence she was facing in court her movements in the room after Dr. Yeo allegedly cupped her breasts were wrong because she had no independent memory of where she had moved. Mrs. for “telling the above lies”.

This service is not intended for people residing in the EU. By clicking “Subscribe” I consent to receive news and promotional materials from Mediacorp and Mediacorp’s partners.

We know switching browsers can be a chore, but we want your experience with CNA to be fast, safe, and as good as possible.

To continue, upgrade to a supported one Browser or download the mobile app for the best experience.