TRANSCRIPTS SENT TO MEDIA
On Mar 5, 2021, the fifth day of trial, Thuraisingam sought the trial judge’s permission to distribute the transcripts of the proceedings, which were in private, to members of the media.
He gave an undertaking to the court that any distribution of the transcripts to the media would carry redactions of the woman’s identity and a warning about the gag order in place.
The trial judge granted Thuraisingam’s application on the basis that the lawyer would make the necessary redactions and there would be no breach of the gag order.
On Mar 16, 2021, after the team received the transcripts for the first four days of trial, Thuraisingam sent Hadi instructions over email about distributing them to the media.
“Pls remember to black out complainant’s name and remind the press that they cannot print the complainant’s name,” he wrote, referring to the woman who was the complainant against Dr Yeo.
“Explain that we applied for an order that we be allowed to furnish the press with the transcripts,” he added.
Thuraisingam did not instruct Hadi to redact all information likely to lead to the identification of the woman, Deputy Public Prosecutors Sivakumar Ramasamy and Sivanathan Jheevanesh said.
Following the senior lawyer’s instructions, Hadi redacted only the woman’s name from the transcripts and emailed them to journalists from Mediacorp and Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) on Mar 16, 2021.
In his emails to media, Hadi wrote: “We are now releasing transcripts to you, but with the complainant’s name redacted as the gag order in relation to the complainant’s identity remains in place.”
PROSECUTION’S BID TO EXPAND GAG ORDER
On Jun 26, 2021, the prosecution in Dr Yeo’s case applied to withdraw the charges against the doctor. At the same time, Thuraisingam indicated that the defence would apply for the gag order to be lifted.
A hearing was scheduled on Aug 16, 2021 for the charges to be withdrawn and both sides to make their arguments on the gag order lifting application.
In preparation for the hearing, the prosecution filed written submissions contesting the gag order lifting application on Aug 4, 2021.
The prosecution requested to expand the scope of the gag order to include the identities of witnesses who were the woman’s colleagues, the name of the product marketed by the woman, her relationship with Dr Yeo and the name of her employer at the time.
Before the hearing, between Aug 4 and Aug 11, 2021, Thuraisingam instructed Hadi to distribute transcripts of the trial and the defence’s written submissions applying to lift the gag order to members of the media.
Thuraisingam again did not instruct Hadi to redact all information likely to lead to the woman’s identification, said Mr Sivakumar and Mr Sivanathan.
Accordingly, Hadi emailed a bundle of the transcripts and submissions to journalists from Mediacorp, SPH, South China Morning Post, Mothership, Yahoo News, The China Press Malaysia and The Online Citizen on Aug 11, 2021.
The front page of the bundle carried the notation: “All transcripts have been redacted pursuant to the gag order in place at the time of writing in relation to the identification of the complainant.”
However, the transcripts contained unredacted information likely to lead to the woman’s identification, including her age, date of birth, current occupation, current employer and occupation at the time of the alleged molestation.
The transcripts also contained information that was the subject of the prosecution’s application to expand the scope of the gag order.
At the hearing on Aug 16, 2021, Dr Yeo was given a discharge amounting to an acquittal after the prosecution withdrew all charges against him.
Dr Yeo’s lawyers then withdrew the application to lift the gag order. When the trial judge asked for the defence’s position on the prosecution’s application to expand the gag order, Thuraisingam said: “If the prosecution says that it’s necessary to protect the alleged complainant’s identity, we take no position.”
The trial judge then granted the expanded gag order, which remains in force.