Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ,Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA,Judith Prakash JCA,Steven Chong JCA,Quentin Loh JAD |
Judgment Date | 08 January 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGCA 1 |
Published date | 13 January 2021 |
Year | 2021 |
Hearing Date | 22 October 2020 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ravi s/o Madasamy (Carson Law Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | P Padman and Lim Yun Heng (KSCGP Juris LLP) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2021] SGCA 1 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 9 of 2020 (Summons No 44 of 2020) |
All advocates and solicitors are officers of the Supreme Court and are subject to its control pursuant to ss 82 and 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”). Complaints against a solicitor are made to the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) and are to be dealt with according to the processes set out in Part VII of the LPA. The disciplinary process culminates in an application made to “a court of 3 Judges of the Supreme Court” constituted under s 98(7) of the LPA (“the C3J”). But before then, the complaint must be assessed by various bodies constituted under the LPA. Each of these assessments is done sequentially. Where any of these bodies declines to refer it to the next stage, an aggrieved complainant may apply for that decision to be reviewed by a judge.
In the present case, such a complaint was considered by an Inquiry Committee which issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed. The Council of the Law Society (“the Council”), after considering the report, determined that no formal investigation was necessary and dismissed the complaint. The complainant applied to a judge (“the Judge”) under s 96 of the LPA to review the Council’s determination. The Judge, having done so, affirmed the Council’s determination.
The question before us in this application is whether such a decision of the Judge can be appealed to this court. Relying on an earlier decision of this court in
In 2015, Mr Iskandar bin Rahmat (“Mr Iskandar”) was tried on two charges of murder under s 300(
On 4 December 2015, Tay Yong Kwang J (as he then was) convicted Mr Iskandar on both charges and sentenced him to suffer death (see
On 14 February 2018, Mr Iskandar wrote to the Law Society to file a complaint against his trial counsel alleging that they had failed to comply with his instructions in the conduct of his defence. He followed up on the initial complaint with two further letters dated 5 April 2018 and 7 May 2018. The Inquiry Committee was appointed on 3 August 2018. As part of the inquiry, the Inquiry Committee obtained written explanations from the trial counsel and heard from four of them at a hearing on 23 October 2018. The Inquiry Committee also spoke to Mr Iskandar at Changi Prison Complex, where he is held, on 10 December 2018 and 10 January 2019. Mr Iskandar raised nine allegations regarding the conduct of the trial but the details of these allegations are not relevant for the purposes of the present application.
In its report dated 7 February 2019, the four-member Inquiry Committee unanimously recommended that no formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal was necessary and the complaint should be dismissed. The Law Society informed Mr Iskandar by a letter dated 20 March 2019 that the Council had considered the findings of the Inquiry Committee and determined that no formal investigation was necessary, and the Law Society would not take further action on the complaint.
The decision belowOn 7 June 2019, Mr Iskandar filed HC/OS 716/2019 pursuant to s 96 of the LPA seeking a review of the Council’s determination and an order directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal. Mr Iskandar’s contention was that the Inquiry Committee had breached the rules of natural justice and reached the wrong conclusion on the merits of all nine heads of complaint.
The Judge dismissed the application on 10 October 2019 (see
On 18 March 2020, the Law Society filed CA/SUM 44/2020 to strike out the appeal on the basis that there is no right of appeal against any order made by a review judge under ss 95, 96 and 97 of the LPA. The Law Society rested its case on the decision of this court in
Mr Iskandar opposed this application on the ground that the Law Society had failed to address the merits of his appeal and that
On 15 September 2020, the Court of Appeal heard CA/SUM 5/2020 (“SUM 5”), which was an application in a different appeal, CA/CA 227/2019 (“CA 227”), to strike out that appeal. That was a complainant’s appeal against the decision of a judge pursuant to s 97 of the LPA to affirm the Disciplinary Tribunal’s determination, after a formal investigation into a complaint against a solicitor, that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed. The solicitor had applied to strike out the appeal on the authority of
Judgment was reserved in that application. On the same day, Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy (“Mr Ravi”) was appointed as counsel for Mr Iskandar in the present appeal. Mr Ravi informed the court that Mr Iskandar wished to intervene in SUM 5 as that application engaged the same issues as the Law Society’s present application. While Mr Iskandar’s request to intervene was denied, we allowed Mr Ravi to file further written submissions and the Law Society to reply to the same.
Mr Ravi submitted that the appeal should not be struck out. First, he argued that this court was not bound by
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miao Weiguo v Tendcare Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd
...Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 592 (refd) Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd [2018] 2 SLR 333 (refd) Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore [2021] 1 SLR 874 (refd) Ivanishvili, Bidzina v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 638 (refd) Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra v Salgaocar Anil Vassudeva [2018] 5 SLR ......
-
Miao Weiguo v Tendcare Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tian Jian Hua Xia Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd) (in judicial management) and another
...was in fact on the coram of Townsing. However, as I observed in a concurring judgment in Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore [2021] 1 SLR 874 (at [96]): On a more general level, it might also be usefully observed that the law is seldom static and develops over time. Hence, what a......
-
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua
...Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (refd) Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 81 ALR 417 (refd) Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore [2021] 1 SLR 874 (folld) Law Society of Singapore, The v Koh Tien Hua [2019] SGDT 9 (overd) Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon Yang [2018] 5 SLR 1068 (fo......
-
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua
...SLR 1279. His application was held in abeyance pending the Court of Appeal’s decision in Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore [2021] 1 SLR 874 (“Iskandar”), where a five-judge panel of the court held that there is a right of appeal against the decision of a High Court judge made u......
-
Conflict of Laws
...Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 545 at [48]–[50]. 113 Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore [2021] 1 SLR 874 at [71], per Sundaresh Menon CJ. 114 6DM (S) Pte Ltd v AE Brands Korea Ltd [2021] SGHC 257 at [72] and [82]. 115 Carona Holdings Pte Ltd v G......
-
Legal Profession
...KTH filed the striking-out application before the Court of Appeal issued its decision in Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore [2021] 1 SLR 874, in which the Court of Appeal overturned a previous decision and held that it did have the jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. See (2020)......