NUS law prof challenges CPIB officer in sex—for—grades trial

SINGAPORE: The law professor on trial for corruption in a sex—for—grades case on Thursday cross—examined an anti—graft officer on the admissibility of one of six statements. The procedure is also known as a "trial within a trial".

Tey Tsun Hang challenged Bay Chun How to prove his case that his statement given to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was made under duress.

If he can prove this, he will able to argue that the evidence cannot be admitted in court and this would weaken the prosecution’s case.

On the sixth day of the closely—watched trial, several allegations were made against CPIB officer Bay Chun How, who recorded one of six of Tey’s statements.

Tey had been picked up by Mr Bay on 2 April last year to help with investigations, but he became ill and was said to be vomiting.

Tey was sent to Alexandra Hospital in an ambulance.

Tey has charged that Mr Bay had been eager to haul him back to the CPIB on 5 April, to record a statement, even though he was still on medical leave.

But the senior officer pointed out that it was Tey who "insisted on giving (the) statement".

Later, when re—examined by the prosecution on whether he had asked how Tey was feeling during the interview, Mr Bay said: "No. He looked fine, clear—headed."

During the interrogation, Tey, a former district judge, said he showed Mr Bay his medication, but was still forced to make a confession. Mr Bay firmly denied this.

At one point in time, Tey claimed that Mr Bay threatened to place his wife under arrest. Mr Bay disagreed.

Tey’s other allegations include Mr Bay swearing at him and placing him in a "very cold interrogation cell" on 2 April. Mr Bay denied having sworn at Tey.

As for the interrogation cell, he said: "The air—con controller was mounted on the wall for you to adjust."

During prosecution’s re—examination, Mr Bay also shed light on the time when Tey fell ill.

He told the court his colleague reported to him that Tey was vomiting. "I was expecting to see pale face, bad content on the floor, vomit, but I saw none of those," said Mr Bay.

Prosecutor Kok Shu—En asked: "So what did you see?"

"I saw the accused holding on to a clear plastic bag and trying to vomit something into the bag. The bag had only a few mouthfuls of saliva inside," said Mr Bay.

Mr Bay also told the court on the day when Tey was sent to the hospital, the paramedics who came to pick him up were grumbling.

He said Tey had insisted on being wheeled out to the ambulance, despite being mobile.

Several times during the hearing, the Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye would remind Tey to focus when it seemed like he was deviating from the purpose of showing the court that his statement is inadmissible.

Tey’s repetitive questioning and the fact that Mr Bay did not answer questions directly also slowed down the pace of the trial.

Five other statements of Tey are being disputed.

Two were recorded by CPIB officer Wilson Khoo, who testified in court as the prosecution’s eighth witness on Thursday.

The remaining three were recorded by CPIB Deputy Director Teng Khee Fatt.

Tey faces six allegations of obtaining gratification in the form of gifts and sex from his former student, Ms Darinne Ko, between May and July in 2010, in exchange for giving her better grades.

— CNA/xq