Was it a close hearing? It wasn't announced in the Hearing
Notice.
Anyway... here's the report from TNP:
The Electric New Paper :
Exorcism suit dismissed. Judge says defendents' words had
RING OF TRUTH
TIME, location and people involved.
By Andre Yeo
15 February 2009
TIME, location and people involved.
These were the only things both sides could agree on, said the
judge.
Everything else they had claimed was very different.
But he found the defendants' version to be consistent and the way
they and their witnesses answered questions in the witness box had
a 'ring of truth'.
With these words, the High Court dismissed the case of a woman
against what she called an unauthorised exorcism conducted on her
at the Novena Church.
The much-publicised civil suit between Madam Amutha Valli Krishnan,
53, and the church finally came to an end yesterday when Justice
Lee Seiu Kin delivered his judgment.
The case had dragged on for more than four years. It stemmed from
her allegation that two priests at the church, Father Jacob Ong and
Father Simon Tan, and several churchgoers had performed an exorcism
on her against her will for more than 21/2 hours on 10 Aug
2004.
Justice Lee noted the defence's witnesses had seen Madam Amutha
crawl like a snake, march like a soldier and speak as
Lucifer.
He said it would have been very difficult for the 15 witnesses to
maintain their evidence while being cross-examined by Madam
Amutha's 'very competent counsel', Mr R S Bajwa, 58.
The main thing Justice Lee was unhappy about with the defence
witnesses was that they were less than candid about what they were
trying to do that night.
They had said they were only praying for her and were not
performing an exorcism. But he noticed that the priests had said
they had spoken with the spirit of the dead soldier and to Lucifer
himself.
Justice Lee said since she was suing them for false imprisonment,
assault and battery, and negligence, it did not matter whether what
they were doing was called an exorcism or engaging the
spirits.
What really mattered, he said, was what they were doing to her and
the circumstances under which those acts were carried out.
Not assaulted
He found she and her family members were not prevented from leaving
the room, she was not assaulted, and the defendants had acted
reasonably that night.
While he found the defence witnesses to be consistent in their
testimonies, Justice Lee found that Madam Amutha and her family
members kept changing their story.
He found her daughter, Ms Subashini Jeyabal, to be intelligent
'with a sharp mind and an equally sharp tongue'. He said she had
claimed she had a close relationship with her mother.
But there was evidence that she had called Madam Amutha a 'slut and
prostitute'. It was only then that Ms Subashini had admitted there
were problems.
And while she was confident, Justice Lee found her brother, Jairaj,
a little less confident.
Justice Lee said: 'I observed he displayed nervous twitches which
could be due to the stress of being cross-examined or to the fact
he had to maintain a story that was not true.'
He also found that Mr Resham Singh, described as Madam Amutha's
sworn brother, had occasionally changed his evidence in the witness
box.
He had denied travelling to Malaysia and Australia with her but had
to admit to this when confronted with evidence from their
passports.
He and her children had also claimed there was a statue of Mother
Mary at one corner of the church but evidence showed that there was
never a statue there.
Besides these inconsistencies, Justice Lee also noted the attempts
Madam Amutha had made to conceal her mental condition from her
doctors.
He ruled that she did not suffer from post-traumatic stress
syndrome (PTSD) because of the events at the church.
What was she suffering from?
But if she was not suffering from PTSD, as her psychiatrists had
claimed, what was she suffering from then?
Justice Lee said that was not a question for the court to answer
but noted doctors from both sides agreed she was very ill.
He said he found that what had happened that night at the church
had not caused her to suffer any damage and that she had not proven
her case against the defendants.
He then dismissed her claim and will decide on costs later.
Lawyers from both sides were glad the trial was finally over.
Mr Bajwa said he was naturally disappointed with the outcome but
was encouraged by the fact that the judge questioned the
defendants' intentions that night.
He said he will be taking instructions from Madam Amutha about
whether she was planning to appeal.
Mr Tito Isaac, 38, who represented the Redemptorist Order and
Father Simon, was at Sentosa last night with his wife and another
couple to have dinner and to celebrate.
Yesterday, lawyers for the case were told they could collect the
judgment from the High Court in the late afternoon.
Senior Counsel, Jimmy Yim, 50, who represented Fr Jacob for free,
called it a very deserving win.
He said: 'It has been a burden for the church and for these people
since August 2004. It was a vigorous battle fought but at the end
of the day, the defendants and the church have been liberated by
this judgment of truth.'
