Support Groups (Public & Private) > Support Groups (Public)

2015 Dallas Buyers Club - Singapore (Public Support Group)

<< < (15/15)

ainat:
Lawyer Samuel Seow admits to using force on 2 female employees
Wan Ting Koh | 27 July 2020

SINGAPORE — In a space of a few minutes, entertainment lawyer Samuel Seow Theng Beng assaulted his niece and poked an executive in his firm over work matters.

Seow, 47, had been upset that his niece, who worked at Seow’s firm as a lawyer, had not answered a question by him. Both incidents occurred on 17 April 2018.

The owner of Samuel Seow Law Corporation, Beam Artistes and Samuel Seow Corporate pleaded guilty on Monday (27 July) to one charge each of using force with the intent to cause annoyance to Rachel Kang, a 21-year-old artiste and events executive at Beam Artistes, and voluntarily causing hurt to Brenda Kong, his 26-year-old niece who was a lawyer at Seow’s law firm.

Another two charges of a similar nature will be taken into consideration when Seow is sentenced.

Reports of Seow’s assault on the two women first emerged in 2018, with a 30-minute audio recording of a quarrel between Seow and his niece going viral online.

In 26 April last year, two videos were uploaded online, one of which was footage taken from a closed-circuit television camera in Seow’s office capturing the incident.

The CCTV footage was played in court on Monday, while Seow bowed his head down and folded his arms.

Kang filed a police report on 12 May 2018, alleging that Seow had physically abused her on a number of occasions since 26 March that year during her period of employment.

On 17 April 2018, at about 5.47pm, Kang was about to leave the office at 79 South Bridge Road to prepare for a company event when Seow scolded her for leaving with her work incomplete.

In anger, Seow poked Kang’s forehead twice forcefully with his finger. He also pushed a file that Kang was holding, causing the woman to stagger backwards.

Kong, who was present in the office, witnessed the act and left her phone on voice recording mode in case something similar happened to her.

Minutes after the first incident, Seow asked aloud the whereabouts of an associate director but Kong did not respond as she was unsure. She then walked to the photocopy machine at about 5.54pm.

When Seow saw Kong, he repeated his question and his niece replied that the associate director had a meeting from 4pm to 5pm, but that she did not know where he went thereafter.

Angered, Seow asked Kong why she had not replied him earlier and Kong said she didn’t know the associate director’s whereabouts. Unsatisfied with the answer, Seow walked towards her and repeated his question.

Kong raised her arm across her chest to protect herself when Seow approached her, and accidentally touched his chest. The contact prompted Seow to charge at Kong.

“He shouted ‘Brenda!’, before repeatedly saying ‘you beat me, you beat me, you dare to beat me’,” said Deputy Public Prosecutor Kumaresan Gohulabalan.

A scuffle ensued, with Seow pushing Kong back. A staff member attempted to restrain Seow but Seow broke free and rained slaps on Kong’s cheeks and head. Kong retaliated while at least three other employees attempted to intervene. At one point, Seow pushed Kong until she fell.

When another female employee tried to pull Seow away, Seow hit her on her arm shouting, “You stop it!” before confronting Kong again. Kong eventually managed to leave the office after Seow was restrained by a male employee.

Kong sought medical attention and was found with tenderness over her cheek, scalp, neck, arm, together with bruises and abrasions.

DPP Kumaresan told the court that it was seeking for the court to hold a Newton hearing to determine when Seow had been suffering from a psychiatric illness, adjustment disorder, and if it was causally linked to his offence. He noted that the psychiatrists from the defence and prosecution disagreed as to whether Seow was suffering from the psychiatric disorder at the time of the offence.

Seow is represented by lawyer Choo Si Sen, who told the court that the defence was seeking a mandatory treatment order report to access Seow’s suitability for the sentencing option, where an offender will undergo psychiatric treatment.

Choo did not object to a Newton hearing.

The case has been fixed for a pre-trial conference on 13 August.

Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/lawyer-samuel-seow-admits-to-using-force-on-2-female-employees-070653570.html

ainat:
Final (27 Oct 2020) updates on the fully discharged crowd funds: http://dishonest.biz/forum/index.php/topic,51.msg465.html#msg465

ainat:
High Court throws out Hollywood movie piracy case
Irene Tham | Apr 20, 2017

Internet users in Singapore have scored a landmark victory against tactics used by copyright holders fighting alleged piracy.

The Singapore High Court has thrown out applications from two Hollywood studios to compel local telcos to release the details of Internet subscribers who allegedly downloaded two movies: Fathers & Daughters and Queen Of The Desert.

The oral decision delivered at a closed-door hearing on Monday was on the grounds of "insufficient evidence", the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) told The Straits Times yesterday.

In a rare move, the AGC intervened in civil applications made in the High Court in July last year by Samuel Seow Law Corp (SSLC), the local law firm that represents the two studios.

Queen Of The Desert, which stars Nicole Kidman, is produced by QOTD Film Investment.

Fathers & Daughters, a 2015 movie starring Russell Crowe, is produced by Voltage Pictures - the same studio that went after Internet users here in 2015 for illegally downloading the movie Dallas Buyers Club.

SSLC represented Voltage at the time, and was able to get Singtel, StarHub and M1 to turn over the names, NRIC numbers and addresses of alleged illegal downloaders. Hundreds of letters were sent out with users told to pay $5,000. The Straits Times understands that a handful of Internet users settled for an undisclosed sum.

Last year, SSLC again served papers on Singtel, StarHub and M1 to get details of alleged pirates of Fathers & Daughters and Queen Of The Desert, with a list of over 500 offending Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

The AGC and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) said they highlighted to the court that SSLC did not submit "sufficient evidence" to show a link between the IP addresses and alleged illegal downloaders. It was on such grounds that the case was dismissed.

Intellectual property lawyer Cyril Chua of Robinson LLC said: "Many people may be sharing the same Wi-Fi connection. It doesn't mean that the registrant of the line is downloading."

On the other hand, Mr Lau Kok Keng, an IP lawyer at Rajah & Tann Singapore, said requiring the rights owner to link the IP address to the actual infringer is akin to "putting the cart before the horse" - copyright holders need to know who the account holder is to ascertain if he is the actual pirate.

"So it could mean that individuals who illegally download copyright content will be able to get off scot-free because their identities will never be known, short of being caught in the act," said Mr Lau.

Lawyers close to the case said the landmark decision signals a push for copyright holders to enforce their copyright via other means. For instance, the amended Copyright Act that took effect in December 2014 lets content owners seek a High Court order to get telcos to block piracy websites. Before the revised law, they could not compel telcos to block pirated content.

The AGC and IPOS said they had intervened to prevent "an abuse of the process of the court".

In 2015, complaints were made against two SSLC lawyers for breaching ethical guidelines by using threats of criminal litigation in demand letters over the alleged piracy of Dallas Buyers Club.

Mr Samuel Seow, managing director of SSLC, said: "Despite the difficulties, where instructed, we shall press on to find more concrete and substantial evidence which will satisfy the court because it is important to send out the message that the works of copyright holders should be properly protected and enforced accordingly."

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page