Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 13 August 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 197
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 346 of 2003
• Date: 13 August 2003
• Published date: 03 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Prakash Mulani (M&A Law Corporation)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 197
• Defendant Counsel: C R Rajah SC (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) ss 83(1) & 83(2)(b),Show cause action,Appropriate penalty,Whether implied defect of character rendering advocate and solicitor unfit for profession,Respondent convicted of criminal offence under s 323 of Penal Code (Cap 224)

1 This was an application by the Law Society of Singapore under s 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)(“the Act”) to make absolute a show cause order against the respondent advocate and solicitor, Mr Wong Sin Yee (“Wong”), following from his conviction before a Subordinate Court on a charge of voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). Having heard counsel for the Law Society as well as for Wong, we made the order absolute and imposed the punishment of two years’ suspension from practice on him. We now give our reasons.

The Background

2 On 26 December 1998, at about 7:30pm, Mr Mok Gok Keong (“Mok”) was driving his car along with his wife, Mdm Chou Siew Kee (“Mdm Chou”) as the front passenger. His vehicle was travelling on the second lane from the left, the first lane being a bus lane. Traffic was then very heavy. Wong, who was then driving his car in the first lane, cut into Mok’s lane notwithstanding that Mok had sounded his horn in warning. Having gotten into the second lane, Wong suddenly braked, causing Mok to brake as well, in order to avoid a collision. Both drivers alighted from their vehicles to assess the situation. Wong asked Mok why the latter had hit his vehicle and demanded compensation. As far as Mok was concerned, he did not think that there was any contact between the two vehicles. Both drivers then returned to their cars to remove them to the side of the road, so as not to cause obstruction to traffic. Having done so, the two drivers continued their argument along the five-foot way.

3 As Mok refused to compensate Wong, the latter used his handphone to call the police, who apparently told him that as there was no personal injury, they should settle the matter between themselves. Mok then asked his wife Mdm Chou to call her father for advice. As Mdm Chou was using her handphone to do so, Wong rushed forward, gesticulating with his handphone in his left hand, and shouted at her saying “why call your father, call Lee Kuan Yew or the F..ing police.” At that point, sensing that harm might come to her, Mok told his wife to return to the car. He then turned away from Wong intending not to aggravate the situation. At that instant, Wong pulled Mok’s hair from behind and used the handphone which he was holding in his left hand to hit Mok on the mouth before releasing the latter. Wong then clenched both his fists and challenged Mok to a fight. The latter refused. On witnessing all that, Mdm Chou came out of the car and asked Wong for his identity card to obtain his particulars. Wong refused and uttered obscenities. Both parties then left the scene.

4 Mok immediately went to the Central Police Station to make a report. He was then referred to the for a medical examination. The doctor noted a one cm haematoma and superficial abrasion on Mok’s right inner lower lip.

5 Wong was subsequently charged before a on two counts. One was for causing alarm to Mdm Chou by uttering the insulting words, an offence punishable under s 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Amended Act (Cap 184, 1996 Edn), and the other was for causing hurt to Mok, an offence punishable under s 323 of the Penal Code.

6 At the conclusion of the trial, Wong was convicted on both charges. He was fined $2,000 on the first charge and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on the second charge. The latter was enhanced to a term of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of $1,000 (in default six months’ imprisonment) on the cross-appeal of the Public Prosecutor. Wong’s appeal against conviction (on a point of law) was dismissed.

7 Following Wong’s conviction and the dismissal of his appeal, two charges were eventually brought against him by the Law Society as follows:-

Charge I

You, Mr Wong Sin Yee, Male 41 years, NRIC No. S1328846A, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, are charged that you, on 31 January 2001, were convicted in the Subordinate Courts for an offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) and you have thereby been convicted of a criminal offence 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).

Charge II

You, Mr Wong Sin Yee, Male 41 years, NRIC No. S1328846A, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, are charged that you, on 31 January 2001, were convicted in the Subordinate Courts for an offence of causing alarm under Section 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Amended Act, 1996 Edition (Chapter 184), and you have thereby been convicted of a criminal offence 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).

(alternatively)

You, Mr Wong Sin Yee, Male 41 years, NRIC No. S1328846A, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, are charged that you, on 31 January 2001, were convicted in the Subordinate Courts for an offence of causing alarm under Section 13A(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Amended Act, 1996 Edition (Chapter 184), and you are thereby guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).

8 By virtue of s 83(6) of the Act, it was not permissible for Wong to re-open the issues behind the convictions even though he tried to do so before the Disciplinary Committee (“DC”). The DC found that a member of the legal profession should demonstrate, first, an unquestionable standard of honesty and integrity and second, a high level of self-restraint. In this case, the charges did not impugn his honesty or integrity but his total lack of self-restraint. Having regard to the circumstances surrounding the assault charge, and the sentence meted out in relation thereto, the DC held that what he did constituted a defect in character which rendered him unfit for the profession.

9 As regards the second charge involving the use of abusive language, the DC concluded that as this charge involved only a single use of the “F” word, and the punishment imposed by the court...