Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 02 September 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 229
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 12 December 2012
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 229
• Plaintiff Counsel: Dennis Tan (Toh Tan & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

JUDGMENT:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

delivered by Yong Pung How CJ ...

In these disciplinary proceedings pursuant to s 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act), the respondent, Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore since 1985, was called upon to show cause why he should not be dealt with by the court under s 83(1) of the Act. The respondent, acting in person, chose not to appear before the court to show cause. At the end of hearing counsel for the Law Society of Singapore (the Law Society), we came to the conclusion that due cause had been shown for disciplinary action to be taken against the respondent. We decided that the appropriate order in all the circumstances of the case was to strike the respondent off the roll and accordingly we so ordered. We now give our reasons.

2 The material facts leading to the proceedings before us were these. On 28 June 1993, the respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of abetting a client, one Teo In Hin (Teo) in the commission of the offence of intentionally omitting to attend at the subordinate courts from 3 to 4 December 1990, in obedience to an order made by a judicial officer, being an offence punishable under s 174 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The charge further stated that the respondent instigated Teo to obtain a medical certificate from a medical practitioner, Ramaswami s/o RV Narasimhalu Naidu (Dr Ramaswami), certifying that Teo was unfit to attend court on 3 to 4 December 1990. Seven other similar charges were taken into consideration and the respondent was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment and a fine of $1,000. The respondent did not appeal against either the conviction or the sentence.

3 The statement of facts relied upon by the prosecution stated that Dr Ramaswami was the respondent's friend and family doctor. In late January 1989, Dr Ramaswami agreed to help the respondent's clients if they wished to absent themselves from court. Dr Ramaswami told the respondent to send such clients to consult him at his clinic to obtain medical certificates. Since then, some of the respondent's clients had done so and Teo was one of them. The facts of the particular charge proceeded with were these. A few days before 3 December 1990, Teo went to the respondent's office to seek legal advice about his pending case. The respondent told Teo to seek an adjournment on the first day of the hearing and suggested obtaining a medical...