Jipson Quah statements to police in fake vaccine case involving Iris Koh allowed in court
Christine Tan for The Straits Times
The doctor in a fake Covid-19 jab trial had voluntarily given his statements to the police without threat, inducement or promise, ruled a district judge on July 28.
So, six of the police statements given by suspended doctor Jipson Quah, 37 - which implicate his two co-accused Iris Koh and Thomas Chua Cheng Soon - were deemed to be admissible in court.
District Judge Paul Quan found that the investigation officers whom Quah accused of inducing him to make those statements had not done so.
Delivering his remarks on July 28, Judge Quan said any sort of inducement could well have been self-perceived by Quah.
The ruling marks the end of the ancillary hearing, or a trial within a trial, to determine the admissibility of statements Quah gave to investigation officer (IO) Ng Shiunn Jye from Central Police Division.
The issue came up during the main trial concerning Quah, his former clinic assistant Chua, 43, and Koh, 49, the founder of anti-vaccine group, Healing the Divide
The trio allegedly conspired to falsely inform the Health Promotion Board that patients had been given Covid-19 vaccination when they had not.
During the main trial, Quah sought to throw out six of his 11 police statements on the basis they had been recorded under threat, inducement or promise by the authorities.
The disputed statements were recorded between Jan 22 and Jan 29, 2022.
Quah claimed IO Ng told him he would not be released on bail unless he provided the names of 15 patients mentioned in his statements to the Ministry of Health. Quah also spoke of a "secret meeting" he had with Superintendent Tan Pit Seng, the head of investigation at Central Police Division, while he was in custody. He said that at the meeting, Supt Tan suggested that Quah could show remorse and his willingness to cooperate by naming Koh as the mastermind of the scheme.
Evaluating the interaction between IO Ng and Quah, Judge Quan said the investigation officer was giving factual replies to Quah's queries.
The judge said: "Dr Quah was the one who initiated the conversation about bail, (and) IO Ng was merely responding to Dr Quah with factually neutral answers expected of him."
Additionally, before Quah had a conversation with IO Ng, he had already named 15 to 17 patients implicated in the case when his clinic was raided on Jan 21, 2022.
Judge Quan said: "At best, Dr Quah was not certain of what IO Ng asked of him. Any inducement from (IO Ng) could well have been self-perceived."
As for Quah's conversation with Supt Tan, the judge found that the police superintendent had met Quah as there was due cause for concern due to the latter's referral to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH).
Though some details of their meeting were disputed, Judge Quan found that Supt Tan was a credible and truthful witness and these discrepancies were not fatal to the prosecution's case.
Noting that these discrepancies could be attributed to human fallibility, Judge Quan added: "A perfect, watertight and ironclad case would otherwise have been suspicious for an uneventful meeting that took place more than three years ago."
Contrary to Quah's claim that he was asked by Supt Tan to name Koh as the mastermind of the scheme, the judge pointed out that Quah had already implicated Koh in two earlier police statements.
Quah had also mentioned Koh's involvement in the case to a psychiatrist during an assessment at IMH.
Quah, who was dressed in a navy three-piece suit and bow tie, listened to the ruling mostly with his eyes closed and brows furrowed.
After Judge Quan delivered his remarks, Chua said he would also like to contest the voluntary admission of his police statements and intends to engage a lawyer.
The trial continues.
