Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua Lee Ming J
• Judgment Date: 30 August 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 198
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 85 of 2017
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 13 June 2020
• Hearing Date: 03 May 2018,10 July 2018,07 May 2018,04 May 2018,28 January 2019,08 May 2018,25 February 2019,18 October 2018,09 May 2018,24 October 2018,25 May 2018,30 April 2018,27 February 2019,10 May 2018,23 October 2018,02 May 2018,24 May 2018,19 October 2018,11 July 2018,25 October 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz, Amanda Chong, Chew Xin Ying, and Wong Kok Weng (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Edmond Pereira, Vickie Tan, and Amardeep Singh (Edmond Pereira Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Rape,Sexual assault by penetration,Elements of crime,Actus reus,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Charge,Alternative charges,Disclosure,Sentencing,Conviction
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 198

Chua Lee Ming J: Introduction

The accused, Dr Wee Teong Boo, claimed trial to two charges. The first charge was for the offence of rape (the “rape charge”) under s 375(1)(a), punishable under s 375(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “Penal Code”). The charge alleged that the rape occurred in the course of a purported medical examination at the accused’s clinic, sometime between 11.30pm on 30 December 2015 and 12.30am on 31 December 2015. The accused was alleged to have penetrated the victim’s vagina with his penis, without her consent.

The second charge was for the offence of outrage of modesty (the “OM charge”), punishable under s 354(1) of the Penal Code. The outrage of modesty was alleged to have occurred on 25 November 2015, also in the course of a purported medical examination at the accused’s clinic. The accused was alleged to have used criminal force on the victim by stroking her vulva with his hand, with the intention of outraging her modesty.

The victim in both charges was a 23-year-old female student (“V”) who was a patient of the accused at the material time. At the time of the alleged offences, the accused was 65 years old and a general practitioner at his own clinic, Wee’s Clinic and Surgery located in a Housing Development Board (“HDB”) estate in Singapore.

At the close of the trial, I found that the Prosecution had failed to prove the rape charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I acquitted the accused of the rape charge.

However, the evidence had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had penetrated the victim’s vagina with his fingers, without her consent. Exercising the court’s powers under s 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”), I convicted the accused of the offence of sexual assault by penetration under s 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code (the “s 376(2)(a) offence”) and sentenced him to a term of nine years’ imprisonment.

I also found that the Prosecution had proven the OM charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. I convicted the accused accordingly and sentenced him to a term of one year’s imprisonment.

I ordered both sentences to run consecutively. I also ordered the accused to pay compensation of $1,200 being the consultation costs incurred by V for psychotherapy.

The Prosecution has appealed against the accused’s acquittal on the rape charge and against both the sentences. The accused has appealed against both the convictions and both the sentences as well as the compensation order. The accused is currently on bail of $200,000 pending appeal.

Gag order

In light of the sexual nature of the alleged offences, I granted the Prosecution’s application for a gag order prohibiting the publication of any information that could lead to the identification of the victim, under s 8(3) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed). Where necessary, references to certain facts have been redacted.

The Prosecution’s case

At the time of the offences, V was pursuing a course at a local tertiary institution. V lived in an HDB estate. In her spare time, she worked as a service assistant at a clinic. This was not the accused’s clinic. V usually worked about two to five hours a week at this other clinic and her duties involved registering patients, packing medication, and cashiering.

V frequently experienced gastric issues and dermatitis.¹ Before November 2014, she had sought treatment at the clinic where she had worked, but her condition persisted despite taking the prescribed medication, and she did not like the fact that the doctor there did not conduct follow-up checks.² From November 2014, V went to seek treatment at the accused’s clinic because she wanted to consult another doctor about her symptoms.³ In addition, the accused’s clinic was under the Community Health Assist Scheme (“CHAS”) and this meant that V’s consultations and treatments were subsidised.⁴ V may have previously visited the accused’s clinic as a child some ten years ago,⁵ but the accused could not confirm this as records of these visits were too old and would have been disposed of.⁶

Prior to 25 November 2015 (the date of the alleged OM offence), V was treated by the accused 22 times between 28 November 2014 and 5 November 2015.⁷ V had no complaints against the accused during these 22 prior visits. In fact, she felt he was a good doctor as he listened carefully to her complaints, wrote them down, and performed detailed checks.⁸

Annex A is a copy of the sketch plan of the accused’s clinic that was admitted in evidence as exhibit P49.

The accused’s clinic assistants occupied the area behind the reception counter (“the reception area”). Next to the accused’s desk in the consultation room was a pigeon hole which led to the reception area. The only access to the examination room was from the consultation room. A sliding door separated the examination room from the consultation room. The examination room had a bed for patients to lie on during the examination (“the examination bed”). In Annex A, the examination bed is marked “A” to show where swabs were taken.

Events on 25 November 2015

V testified that on 25 November 2015, she was experiencing gastric discomfort. She went to the accused’s clinic in the late afternoon.⁹ V had a brief consultation with the accused in the consultation room.¹⁰

Following the consultation, the accused directed V to the examination room. V lay flat on the examination bed, as instructed by the accused.¹¹ The accused closed the sliding door to the examination room.¹² There was no chaperone present.¹³ V testified that she had not been offered one on any of her prior consultations and examinations, and that she had not requested for one as she had not known she could ask for a chaperone.¹⁴ The accused instructed her to unbuckle and unzip the jeans she was wearing so that he could check her pelvic area and V did as instructed.¹⁵ V did not question the need to unbuckle and unzip her jeans as she trusted the accused as her doctor.¹⁶

The accused began to press V’s lower abdominal area¹⁷ before pressing on the “joint area” near her groin and remarking that there were lumps there.¹⁸ The accused then started pressing V’s vagina with the fingers of his right hand.¹⁹ V marked this area on a drawing.²⁰ This area was subsequently identified as the vulva.²¹ The accused said “okay, okay” as he was pressing her vulva, but V was not sure if he meant that as a statement or a question.²² She replied “okay” because there was no pain.²³

V testified that the accused then slid his right hand under her panties and began stroking her at the vaginal area.²⁴ This vaginal area was subsequently also identified on a marked drawing as her vulva.²⁵ The accused then asked her to sit up and she complied as she thought it was part of the medical examination.²⁶ When V sat up, the accused’s right hand continued to stroke her vulva under her panties,²⁷ while his left hand rubbed V’s lower back in a circular motion.²⁸ She was not sure how long the accused stroked her vulva for, but it felt like a long time to her.²⁹ After some time, V thought she heard the accused say “okay” before withdrawing his hand.³⁰

V claimed she felt the accused’s actions were “weird”, as this was the first time someone of the opposite gender had touched her at her vaginal area.³¹ She also felt “uneasy” because the accused was standing very close to her.³² The accused did not explain why he was stroking her vaginal area.³³ V did not voice her discomfort to the accused because she trusted him and his judgment.³⁴ V felt that the accused was a good doctor because he was thorough.³⁵ V had assumed that it was part of the medical examination as the accused had palpated her upper abdominal area in a similar manner on prior visits.³⁶ In particular, she felt that his actions were similar to how he had asked if it was “okay” when he pressed her upper abdomen on previous examinations.

V’s visit to the polyclinic on 5 December 2015

V scheduled an appointment at a polyclinic to have the lumps checked. She visited the polyclinic on 5 December 2015,³⁷ and requested for a female doctor. She told the polyclinic doctor, later identified as Dr Sheena K Gendeh Jekinder Singh (“Dr Sheena”), that a lump was suspected near her groin. Dr Sheena pressed the same “joint area” and told V that there was indeed a lump. This reassured V that what the accused had done to her on 25 November 2015 was just a medical examination.³⁸ Dr Sheena told her it was a swollen lymph node, and prescribed antibiotics for her.³⁹ A tax invoice confirmed that V had paid a visit to the polyclinic on 5 December 2015.⁴⁰

Events on 30–31 December 2015 At the accused’s clinic

V testified that on the morning of 30 December 2015, she felt an itch at her genital area and was experiencing frequent urination.⁴¹ She first went to the polyclinic in the afternoon, but it was crowded.⁴² She decided to go to the accused’s clinic. Her last visit to the accused’s clinic was on 25 November 2015. She made a call to the accused’s clinic and was told to go at around 11pm.⁴³ V turned up at the accused’s clinic at about 11.30pm. When it was her turn, V entered the accused’s consultation room, and she told him about the frequent urination and the itch at her genital area.⁴⁴ She also asked for a repeat prescription for her usual gastric medication.⁴⁵

In the consultation room, the accused used a stethoscope to listen to V’s lungs and took her temperature.⁴⁶ The accused then instructed V to proceed to the examination room.⁴⁷ The accused closed the sliding door after they entered the examination room. Again, no chaperone was present.⁴⁸

On that day, V was wearing a t-shirt and shorts. V lay down on the examination bed.⁴⁹ She lifted up her t-shirt as instructed by the accused. The accused stood on V’s right near her waist and hips,⁵⁰ and he began tapping on...