Beautician acquitted of allegations that she had performed injections in contravention of the Medical Registration Act
Following four days of trial in the District Court, the learned District Judge Eddy Tham acquitted a beautician of a charge that she had injected dermal fillers into the face of a Vietnamese woman in contravention Section 13(a) of the Medical Registration Act (the “MRA“) and punishable under Section 17(1)(e) of the MRA.
The judge held that the prosecution had failed to prove their case against the accused as their key witness, the lady who allegedly received the dermal filler injections (the “alleged victim“), gave “wildly different” accounts in court of the number of injections she allegedly received. Under cross-examination, she was also unable to give clear evidence regarding where on her face she was allegedly injected, how many times this happened, or even the year in which any of this happened. Further, she alleged that the accused’s husband was in the room during at least one of the occassions when this was happening. The accused’s husband was called as a prosecution witness to give evidence against the accused, but under cross-examination he squarely contradicted this aspect of the alleged victim’s testimony.
The court therefore could not be satisfied that any of the acts alleged had in fact taken place at all, and acquitted the accused.
Separately, the accused pleaded guilty to one charge of applying two stitches to the forehead of her friend who had been assaulted by her husband. Unbeknownst to the accused at the material time, this was an offence because under Singapore law, only a licensed medical practitioner under the MRA is allowed to perform stitching. The Prosecution tried to seek a jail term of 3 weeks, but the Court disagreed. The Court took into account the fact that the accused had performed the act out of goodwill and for no financial gain to herself. Further mitigating factors included the fact that no harm was caused to any one, and the person who received the stitches herself did not make any complaint and in fact made a full recovery. Therefore, the Court ruled that a fine of $6,000 for this offence was sufficient punishment.
The Prosecution initially filed an appeal against this decision, but later withdrew it.