Law Society of Singapore v Ravi Madasamy

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong CJ
• Judgment Date: 13 February 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 20
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1361 of 2006 (Summons No 3522 of 2006)
• Date: 13 February 2007
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 05 March 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mirza Namazie and Chua Boon Beng (Mallal & Namazie)
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 20
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Section 83(2)(h) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed), r 55(a) Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Rev Ed),Respondent admitting to displaying rude and discourteous behaviour to district judge,Disciplinary procedures,Legal Profession,Show cause action,Whether respondent's conduct amounts to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor,Appropriate punishment in light of respondent's two antecedents of similar misconduct,Whether Law Society's power to amend disciplinary charges similar to Public Prosecutor's powers in relation to prosecution of criminal charges

13 February 2007

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

1 This was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) under s 98 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) for Mr Ravi Madasamy (“the respondent”), an advocate and solicitor of seven years’ standing, to show cause why he should not be dealt with under s 83(1) of the Act.

The amended charge

2 The amended charge made against the respondent before the Law Society’s Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) (“the amended Charge”) reads as follows:

That Ravi Madasamy is 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) in that on the morning of 9^th October 2003 at Court 26, Subordinate Courts, Havelock Road, Ravi Madasamy failed to act with due courtesy to the District Judge Wong Choon Ning before whom he was appearing by:-

a) turning his back on the said District Judge while being addressed;

b) remaining seated while being addressed by the said District Judge;

c) speaking in loud tones to the Prosecuting Officer whilst mention cases were being carried out, thereby interfering with the court proceedings;

d) responding to the said District Judge in an unbecoming manner.

3 Having heard the submissions of the respective parties, we granted the Law Society’s application at the conclusion of the hearing and ordered that the respondent be suspended from practice for a period of one year and bear the costs of the application. We now give the reasons for our decision.

Agreement by parties to amend the original charge

4 Before we consider the submissions of counsel for the Law Society and the respondent, who appeared in person, it would be helpful to the understanding of our views on some of the issues that were raised before us if we first set out the background to the actual disciplinary case that was brought against the respondent.

5 The original statement of case (“SOC”) had set out in full several complaints lodged by the Senior Deputy Registrar of the Subordinate Courts concerning the respondent’s conduct before District Judge Wong Choon Ning (“the District Judge”) on 9 October 2003. In his defence, the respondent denied the bulk of the allegations contained in the original SOC.

6 However, the parties later reached an agreement (“the Agreement”) whereby in consideration of the Law Society amending the original SOC and the original charge as proposed by the respondent, the respondent would:

(a) admit to the amended SOC and the amended Charge;

(b) withdraw his defence and not make any submissions that the amended Charge was not made out; and

(c) make submissions only in mitigation.

7 The Agreement is evidenced by a letter written by counsel for the Law Society to counsel for the respondent on 25 June 2005 (“Letter of 25 June 2005”) where the terms stated in [6] above were set out. It is also significant to note that in the Letter of 25 June 2005, counsel for the Law Society stated that he would not address the DC on the penalty to be imposed and thus the penalty would be left entirely to the DC to decide. On 5 July 2005, counsel for the respondent replied (“Letter of 5 July 2005”)and conveyed the respondent’s unqualified agreement to the proposals contained in the Letter of 25 June 2005.

8 It is not disputed that both parties had something to gain from the Agreement. On the one hand, the proceedings were considerably shortened because under the Agreement, it became unnecessary for the District Judge to testify before the DC or for the Law Society to file an affidavit of evidence in chief (“AEIC”) of the District Judge. On the other hand, the gravity of the allegations contained in the original SOC was greatly tempered under the terms of the Agreement. For example, statements alleging that the respondent had stared at the District Judge and accused the District Judge of committing a criminal offence were removed in the amended SOC. Furthermore, the Law Society withdrew limb (e) of the original charge, which charged the respondent as follows:

(e) threatening the said District Judge and the Court Officer with complaints to the Ministry of Law and the Legal Service Commission.

Proceedings before the DC

9 In the event, when the matter came on for hearing before the DC, the DC allowed the Law Society’s application to amend the original SOC, but not before questioning counsel for the Law Society, on its propriety. The respondent then confirmed that he was withdrawing his defence and also specifically admitted to each and every paragraph in the amended SOC.

10 The facts contained in the amended SOC to which the respondent admitted are as follows:

1. RAVI MADASAMY (hereinafter referred to as “RM”) is an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore and is of 7 years standing.

2. RM appeared as Defence counsel in DAC 4771 of 2003 at a mention in Court No. 26 of the Subordinate Courts, Havelock Road, at 9.00 am on 9^th October 2003. District Judge Wong Choon Ning (“the DJ”) was sitting on the day in question.

3. Once the DJ sat, RM went over to the Prosecuting Officers repeatedly and communicated with them in a loud tone which was clearly audible and as such was interfering with court proceedings.

4. Sometime between 9.00 am and 10.05 am, RM requested that his case be mentioned. He also complained that it was not possible to understand the Prosecuting Officer. RM was advised by the DJ that he should wait his turn for the case to be mentioned and not interrupt the proceedings. RM resumed his seat shortly thereafter but continued going over to the Prosecuting Officer and walking to and fro in the court room muttering even louder than before.

5. A short while later, while charges were being read by an interpreter to an accused person in another case, RM was advised by the DJ to refrain from speaking too loudly in Court. When he was addressed by the DJ, instead of responding in a courteous and professional manner, he turned his back to the DJ, walked away and sat on the sofa at the further end of the court room. He continued to remain seated. The DJ then indicated to RM that he was the counsel she was addressing and informed him that he should rise when being addressed.

6. Instead of apologising for his behaviour, RM stated that the DJ had not addressed him properly and expressed his unhappiness at being pointed at. He informed the DJ that he would report her to the Legal Service Commission and the Ministry of Law.

7. RM was then informed by the DJ that it was rude of him to ignore her and turn his back to her while being addressed and furthermore remain seated whilst the DJ was addressing him. RM was also directed by the DJ not to speak to the Prosecuting Officer or to other counsel in loud tones, RM replied that different people spoke in different tones.

8. At this point, RM made known for the first time to the DJ that he had a case pending in the High Court and that the prosecution did not have RM’s case file in Court. The DJ also directed RM not to speak to the prosecuting officer or to other counsel in Court in a loud voice to which RM replied that he wished that the Court would address him properly.

9. When RM’s case was finally called for mention, he remarked inter-alia that if the prosecution were to ask for a high bail he would raise the matter with the Ministry of Law.

11 On the basis of the admitted facts contained in the amended SOC, the DC determined that cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action to be taken against the respondent pursuant to s 83 of the Act. An order to show cause was subsequently granted under s 98(1) of the Act and the application before us was taken out to make that order final.

Proceedings before this court

The Law Society’s case

12 The proceedings before this court started unexceptionally with counsel for the Law Society making his submissions on the facts, including the events leading to the original SOC and the original charge being amended. Given that the respondent had admitted to the facts contained in the amended SOC, counsel for the Law Society submitted that there were only two main issues for this Court to consider, viz, whether due cause had been shown under s 83(2)(h) of the Act and, if so, whether the respondent should be struck off the roll or suspended from practice for any period not exceeding five years or censured. Given that the DC had already found that the respondent’s misconduct as an advocate and solicitor was of sufficient gravity for him to be sanctioned under s 83(2)(h) of the Act, the case for the Law Society was straightforward.

The respondent’s preliminary objection to the Law Society’s case

13 Before we consider the respondent’s arguments, we note that the respondent did not file an AEIC in these proceedings. He also did not file any written submissions or skeletal arguments as he should have done given that he had known about the hearing for many months. In the proceedings before us, he gave some excuse that he was busy, although we note that he had taken the trouble to write a letter to the Law Society on 29 July 2006 (“Letter of 29 July 2006”) (which letter was produced by the Law Society at the hearing of this application) alleging, inter alia, that the findings of the DC were completely contradictory to their recommendation, and that the DC had found that the Law Society “felt” that the respondent ought not to be referred to the “Court of Appeal [sic]” and that he had all along been given that impression. The contents of the respondent’s Letter of 29 July 2006 are reproduced in full below:

1. I refer to the findings of the Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) in respect of the above matter, a copy of which you would have received.

2. The findings of the DC are completely contradictory to their recommendation.

3....