Wee Teong Boo v Singapore Medical Council: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's Evidentiary Decision
In Wee Teong Boo v Singapore Medical Council, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Wee Teong Boo for judicial review of the Singapore Medical Council's (SMC) decision to admit certain evidence in disciplinary proceedings against him. The evidence consisted of statements Wee made during a prior criminal investigation and trial. The High Court dismissed Wee's application, finding that the SMC's decision was within its statutory powers and did not violate principles of natural justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review of SMC's disciplinary proceedings against Wee Teong Boo regarding admissibility of evidence. Application dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Teong Boo | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Chooi Jing Yen, Johannes Hadi |
| Singapore Medical Council | Respondent | Statutory Board | Application Dismissed | Won | Ho Pei Shien Melanie, Loh Jia Wen Dynyse, Heidi Ngo Jie Xi, Lin Si Hui |
| Attorney-General | Intervener | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Neutral | Fu Qijing, Ho Lian-Yi, Olivia Low Pei Sze |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Ho Pei Shien Melanie | WongPartnership LLP |
| Loh Jia Wen Dynyse | WongPartnership LLP |
| Heidi Ngo Jie Xi | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lin Si Hui | WongPartnership LLP |
| Fu Qijing | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ho Lian-Yi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Olivia Low Pei Sze | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant, a registered medical practitioner, faced disciplinary proceedings by the SMC.
- The SMC sought to admit statements recorded from the Applicant and his testimony from a prior criminal trial.
- The Applicant argued the evidence was inadmissible hearsay.
- The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) ruled the evidence admissible.
- The Applicant sought judicial review of the DT's decision.
- The charge against the applicant was that he performed an internal pelvic examination on a patient without a chaperone, without wearing surgical gloves, and used saliva as lubricant.
5. Formal Citations
- Wee Teong Boo v Singapore Medical Council (Attorney-General, intervener), Originating Summons No 127 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 169
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Alleged professional misconduct occurred. | |
| Applicant was charged with rape. | |
| Applicant was acquitted on appeal. | |
| SMC commenced disciplinary tribunal proceedings against the Applicant. | |
| Applicant brought application for leave to seek a quashing order against the Admissibility Decision. | |
| Hearing held. | |
| Applicant filed further submissions. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the evidence was admissible under s 51(4) of the Medical Registration Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Interpretation of s 51(4) of the Medical Registration Act
- Outcome: The court interpreted s 51(4) as granting the Disciplinary Tribunal decisional autonomy to admit evidence, even if excluded by rules of evidence, subject to relevance and natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that hearsay evidence is admissible under s 51(4) of the Medical Registration Act, provided it is relevant and does not violate principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
- Declaration that the Admissibility Decision is illegal, irrational, and/or contrary to natural justice
- Declaration that the Evidence constitutes hearsay
- Declaration that the Statements can only be used in the criminal proceedings for which they were recorded
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Healthcare Law
- Professional Discipline
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam Manohar | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 731 | Singapore | Cited for obiter remarks on section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the admissibility of statements. |
| Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical Council | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 83 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. |
| Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 719 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that interlocutory appeals are generally not allowed in criminal trials. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 934 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a premature application for leave to seek judicial review is one made before the actual decision-making process of the tribunal at first instance is completed. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited as an appeal against the decision in Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore [2006] 4 SLR 934. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2013] SGHC 5 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. |
| Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical Council | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 681 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that public interest considerations are paramount in disciplinary proceedings against medical practitioners. |
| Wong Meng Hang v Singapore Medical Council and other matters | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 526 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disciplinary proceedings enable the profession to enforce its standards and to underscore to its members the values and ethos which undergird its work. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the exercise of powers conferred by various provisions in the Medical Registration Act is subject to requirements of natural justice. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | Cited for summarizing the irreducible core of the rules of natural justice in the context of disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer. |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of probative value. |
| BNX v BOE and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 289 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an arbitral tribunal is empowered to receive all relevant evidence, with concerns underlying exclusionary rules going only to weight and not admissibility. |
| R (on the application of Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council | English High Court | Yes | [2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin) | England | Cited for the principle that fairness should guide the determination of whether to admit evidence under section 51(4) of the Medical Registration Act. |
| Casey v Repatriation Commission | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [1995] 39 ALD 3428 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the criterion for admissibility of material in the tribunal is not to be found within the interstices of the rules of evidence but within the limits of relevance. |
| Roberts v Balancio | Supreme Court of the New South Wales | Yes | [1987] 8 NSWLR 436 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a decision-maker who is freed from the rules of evidence must still consider whether the material he can consider should in fact be considered. |
| Sammut v AVM Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2012] WASC 27 | Australia | Cited for the principle that even where traditional rules of evidence did not apply, it would be important for the court to consider the probative value of the evidence before taking it into account. |
| R (on the application of Squier) v General Medical Council | English High Court | Yes | [2015] EWHC 299 (Admin) | England | Cited for the principle that the rationality of the connection between a piece of evidence and the resolution of the issue to which it relates may permit greater scope for a tribunal view, differing from the court, to be respected and upheld. |
| R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner, Ex parte Moore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1965] 1 QB 456 | England | Cited for the principle that the rules of natural justice do not necessarily require strict compliance with the rules of evidence. |
| T.A. Miller Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government and Another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1968] 1 WLR 992 | England | Cited for the principle that it is not contrary to natural justice to admit hearsay evidence if the other side has a fair opportunity of commenting on it and contradicting it. |
| Bushell and another v Secretary of State for the Environment | House of Lords | Yes | [1981] AC 75 | England | Cited for the principle that whether fairness requires an inspector to permit a person who has made statements on matters of fact or opinion to be cross-examined by a party to the inquiry depends on all the circumstances. |
| Nursing and Midwifery Council v Ogbonna | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] EWCA Civ 1216 | England | Cited for the principle that it was unfair for a statement to be admitted as the midwife had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. |
| General Medical Council v Spackman | House of Lords | Yes | [1943] AC 627 | England | Cited for the principle that if the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. |
| CFJ v Office of the Children’s Guardian | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2016] NSWSC 1625 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness as he was not deprived of an opportunity to put any information or argument, on which he wished to rely, to the Tribunal in relation to the matters dealt with in the School’s report. |
| Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd & Ors | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2006] NSWSC 530 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the availability of common law litigation privilege did not apply to evidence in proceedings before the tribunal. |
| Victorian Bar Inc v Perkins Ruling No 4 (Legal Practice) | Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal | Yes | [2006] VCAT 460 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the fact per se that a statement is unsworn and made by a person who will not be tested in cross-examination does not constitute unfairness of such a magnitude as to render the statement inadmissible. |
| Chan v Kostakis | Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal | Yes | [2003] VCAT 951 | Australia | Cited for the principle that it would be contrary to the rules of natural justice to allow the letter to be the basis of a crucial finding of fact without opposing parties having the opportunity to cross-examine the maker of the statement or to clarify the situation. |
| Re Kais Jewellery (Syd) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation | Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Yes | [2021] AATA 16 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a statutory provision provides that an administrative tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence does not signify that the tribunal must, over objection, supinely receive any evidence that is tendered before it. |
| Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Gwent County Council | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] QB 429 | England | Cited for the principle that the court’s function was to consider whether the procedure as a whole, being the proceedings before the inspector and the Secretary of State, was fair to the objecting party. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the concept of a prima facie case is also characterized as the appropriate threshold that had to be met before the DT would call upon the defence at the close of the prosecution’s case. |
| Haw Tua Tau v PP | High Court | Yes | [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prima facie standard is met if there is some evidence (not inherently incredible) which, if the judge were to accept it as accurate, would establish each essential element in the alleged offence. |
| Gobinathan Devathasan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 926 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that by the end of the proceedings, the legal burden is on the SMC to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the charge against the medical practitioner is made out. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 [SI 2004/2608] Rule 34(1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174) s 51(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 s 22 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 s 147(3) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed) s 9A(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 259(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Hearsay
- Natural Justice
- Medical Registration Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Professional Misconduct
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Singapore Medical Council
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Evidence
- Hearsay
- Medical Profession
- Administrative Law
16. Subjects
- Evidence
- Administrative Law
- Regulatory Law
- Medical Law
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Judicial Review
- Evidence Law
- Medical Law
- Disciplinary Proceedings