Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Law Society of Singapore

• Judge: Chan Sek Keong CJ
• Judgment Date: 06 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 105
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 105
• Defendant Counsel: Valerie Thean (Attorney-General's Chambers),Sharmini Yogarajah (Haridass Ho & Partners)
• Published date: 17 July 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chelva Retnam Rajah SC and Lalitha Rajah (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Date: 06 July 2007
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 506 of 2007
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Application made 12 years after striking off,Whether lawyer fit to be restored on roll,Whether public interest justifying imposing conditions on lawyer's practising certificate,Reinstatement on roll of advocates and solicitors,Lawyer struck off roll after conviction for offence implying defect of character,Section 102 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed),Section 25A(2)(b) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed),Legal Profession,Practising certificates

6 July 2007

Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

1 This is an application by Glenn Jeyasingam Knight (“the Applicant”) to have his name replaced on the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore pursuant to s 102(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“LPA”). At the conclusion of the hearing, we allowed his application. We now give our reasons for doing so.

Brief facts

2 The Applicant was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore on 11 July 1973. He had begun his career as a Deputy Public Prosecutor in the Attorney-General’s Chambers from 1970. While still with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, he obtained a scholarship to do his Masters in Law at Cambridge University in 1983. On 16 October 1984, he was appointed the Director of the Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”) in the Ministry of Finance, a post he held until 21 March 1991.

3 The Applicant had a distinguished record of public service. According to L P Thean J (as he then was) in Knight v PP [1992] 1 SLR 720 at 729, [27], the Applicant:

… was responsible for the setting-up of the department [CAD] and also for the success of that department in the investigation and prosecution of commercial crimes. In 1989 he received a strong commendation from the Minister for Finance for outstanding leadership in setting up CAD, and in 1990 he was awarded the Public Administration Medal (Gold). In addition, he had served, among others, the positions of a lecturer/tutor in the Faculty of Law, National University; a consultant in the Practice Law Course organized by the Board of Legal Education; vice-chairman of the Board of Governors for four Anglo-Chinese Schools, and vice-chairman of the Board of Management of Anglo-Chinese Independent School.

4 On 20 May 1991, the Applicant was charged with, inter alia, having committed an offence under s 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1970 Ed). He had already been suspended from the Singapore Legal Service (“the Legal Service”) prior to this on 22 March 1991, the day after he was arrested in connection with this charge. The charge (“the 1991 charge”) against him read as follows:

You, Knight Glenn Jeyasingam, NRIC No 0356370/E are charged that you, on or about the 17^th day of November 1989, in Singapore being an agent, to wit, the Director of the Commercial Affairs Department, Ministry of Finance, Singapore, did knowingly use with intent to deceive your principal, to wit, one Jaspal Singh, the Director (Corporate & Regulatory Affairs), Ministry of Finance, a document, to wit, a vehicle invoice of Ching Dtien Company dated 9^th November 1989, in respect of which the said Jaspal Singh was interested and which contained a statement which was false in a material particular, to wit, that Ching Dtien Company had sold to you a Subaru Legacy 1.8 GL motor car for a sum of $73,500.00 which to your knowledge was intended to mislead your principal into granting you a government vehicle loan of $65,000.00, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

On 30 September 1991, the Applicant was convicted on his plea of guilt in the Magistrate’s Court and was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment in respect of the 1991 charge. This was reduced on appeal by the High Court on 6 March 1992 to one day’s imprisonment and a fine of $10,000 or in default to imprisonment of four months (see Knight v PP, [3] supra). The Applicant paid the $10,000 fine. He was subsequently dismissed from the Legal Service.

5 On 19 August 1993, a disciplinary committee of the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) was appointed to hear and investigate certain complaints made against the Applicant. The amended charge faced by the Applicant in the disciplinary proceedings read as follows:

You, Knight Glenn Jeyasingam, are charged that on the 30th day of September 1991 you were convicted on a charge that as an agent you used knowingly with intent to deceive your principal, one Jaspal Singh, the Director (Corporate & Regulatory Affairs) Ministry of Finance, a document, to wit, a vehicle invoice of Ching Dtien Company dated 9 November 1989, in respect of which the said Jaspal Singh was interested and which contained a statement which was false in a material particular, to wit, that Ching Dtien Company had sold to you a Subaru Legacy 1.8 GL motor car for a sum of $73,500.00; which to your knowledge was intended to mislead your principal into granting you a government vehicle loan of $65,000.00, an offence punishable under Section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241 and that on appeal you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 day and a fine of $10,000.00 and in default of payment thereof, a term of imprisonment of 4 months and you are thereby guilty of conduct implying a defect of character which makes you unfit for your profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161, 1990 Edition).

6 The disciplinary committee found that the offence for which the Applicant had been convicted implied a defect of character which made him unfit for the legal profession. Accordingly, cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed). At the subsequent show cause proceedings before the court of three judges, the Applicant was struck off the roll: see Re Knight Glenn Jeyasingam [1994] 3 SLR 531. Although the offence for which the Applicant had been convicted was not at all connected with the discharge of the Applicant’s professional duties as an advocate and solicitor, the court was of the view that it was inexcusable that the Applicant should have become a perpetrator of a crime of deceit when he was, at the time of the offence, charged with the responsibility of overseeing the investigation and prosecution of commercial crimes as Director of the CAD, a position of not inconsiderable significance within the legal profession and one which frequently placed the Applicant in the public eye.

7 In 1998, the Applicant was charged with various charges under ss 403 and 408 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed), relating to certain instances of his conduct in the CAD prior to 1991. After trial, he was convicted of one charge for breach of trust under s 408 for misappropriation of $1,396.39 as Director of the CAD from the CAD’s client account with M & C Services Pte Ltd, and one charge of misappropriation under s 403 of the Penal Code for $1,323.61 from the same client account. The Applicant was sentenced to one day’s imprisonment and a fine of $10,000, or, in default, to imprisonment of 100 days. He was acquitted of a third charge under s 403 of the Penal Code. We will come back to these offences later.

8 It would also be appropriate to set out the Applicant’s employment history since his conviction in 1991. Between 1992 and 1994, the Applicant was engaged as a consultant by PT Singa Jaya, the owners of Palm Beach Resort, a hotel in Batam. After being struck off the roll in 1994, the Applicant worked on a project for four months with Tomlinson Antiques Pte Ltd to help the company improve its marketing techniques. Following that, in 1995, he assisted Credit Development Pte Ltd, the owner of High Street Centre, for a period of eight months in various matters relating to winding-up proceedings that had been instituted against it by a bank. From 15 January 1997 to 31 August 1998, the Applicant was employed by Straits Development Pte Ltd. Although the nature of the work is unknown, according to the Applicant’s affidavit, he “reported to the Chairman on various issues and projects”. From September 1999 to September 2004, the Applicant assisted Shinko Securities Co Ltd (“Shinko”), a Japanese stockbroking company, in connection with the enforcement of a Singapore judgment in Malaysia. Thereafter, the Applicant worked for his wife at her restaurant from November 2004 to December 2005. The restaurant has since closed down. In his affidavit, the Applicant stated that he had had no fixed employment since the restaurant closed down.

The law

9 The power of the court to replace on the roll the name of a solicitor whose name has been removed or struck off the roll is found in s 102 of the LPA (as amended by Act 42 of 2005) which provides as follows:

(1) The court may, if it thinks fit, at any time order the Registrar to replace on the roll the name of a solicitor whose name has been removed from, or struck off, the roll.

(2) Any application that the name of a solicitor be replaced on the roll shall be by originating summons, supported by affidavit, before a court of 3 Judges of the Supreme Court of whom the Chief Justice shall be one.

(3) The originating summons shall be served on the Society which shall —

(a) appear at the hearing of the application; and

(b) place before the court a report which shall include —

(i) copies of the record of any proceedings as the result of which the name of the solicitor was removed from or struck off the roll; and

(ii) a statement of any facts which have occurred since the name of the solicitor was removed from or struck off the roll and which in the opinion of the Council or any member of the [Council] are relevant to be considered or to be investigated in connection with the application.

Time period which has elapsed since the applicant was struck off the roll

10 Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Chelva Retnam Rajah SC, rightly pointed out that in an application under s 102(1) of the LPA, one of the factors that a court has to take into account in determining whether an applicant deserves to have his name restored to the roll is whether a sufficient period of time has elapsed since the time the applicant was struck off the roll and the time the application for restoration is made.

11 Although s 102 does not provide that a minimum...