Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore [Court of Three Judges]

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2013
• Date: 30 September 2013
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 298 of 2013
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Narindar Singh Kang

Plaintiff

and

Law Society of Singapore

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 195

Chao Hick Tin JA

,

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

and

V K Rajah JA

Originating Summons No 298 of 2013

Court of Three Judges

Legal Profession—Reinstatement—Interest of the public—Applicant struck off roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court on 3 October 1997—Applicant's first attempt for reinstatement after nine years and 11 months rejected—Applicant applying for reinstatement for second time—No objections to applicant's reinstatement—Whether and with what conditions applicant should be reinstated

The Applicant was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court (‘the Roll’) on 3 October 1997 for a conviction under s 5 (a) (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (‘the PCA’). Nine years and 11 months later, he applied for reinstatement pursuant to s 102 (1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). The Attorney-General objected to that reinstatement. The Court of Three Judges found that the length of time of debarment did not accurately reflect the severity of the underlying offence and refused his reinstatement.

This was the Applicant's second application for reinstatement. The Applicant had been excluded from the legal profession for a period of 15 years and six months. The Applicant has been working as a paralegal with M/s Kertar and Co since August 2010. There were no objections to the application from the Law Society or the Attorney-General, save that the Law Society proposed six conditions of reinstatement.

Held, allowing the application:

(1) The concerns expressed by the Attorney-General in opposing the first application were no longer of relevance as they had largely been addressed by the time of the present application. The Applicant had shown that he was now a reformed and rehabilitated person who would be extremely unlikely to commit a similar offence in the future. The public interest would be safeguarded. The Applicant had led a blemish-free life for the past 18 years since the incident which constituted his criminal offence. For at least eight of the 18 years, the Applicant was involved in legal work and had discharged this work responsibly and honestly. The only brush which the Applicant had with the law during the period of debarment was in relation to a single traffic incident. His employment at Kertar & Co gave him the opportunity to demonstrate his genuine desire to get back to the law and his determination to be a reliable and trustworthy person: at [15] , [17] , [18] , [20] and [21] .

(2) The Applicant had been debarred for an appropriate period of time for the wrong he had committed. He had been struck off for 15½ years. It had been 18 years since the underlying incident leading to his debarment. Bearing in mind the court's indication in the Applicant's first application that five years from the date of the first application might be an appropriate time for the Applicant to apply for reinstatement, subject to the caveat that any reinstatement would be fact sensitive, the present application could no longer be considered as premature. This was a fortiori the case with the conditions imposed by the Law Society, particularly those conditions relating to the taking of ethics classes and the requirement of accountability to a firm of lawyers (or a sole proprietor approved by the Law Society) for two years: at [25] and [26]

(3) There was another dimension relating to the need to protect the public interest. Given the length of time that the applicant had been away from the practice of law, it would be useful both in the public interest and for the Applicant himself, to impose additional conditions relating to his legal knowledge and competency. There was a need to ensure that every reinstated advocate and solicitor had brushed up on his law so as to be competent again. The Applicant's reinstatement would be subject to the following additional conditions: (a) attend conferences, lectures, seminars or workshops conducted by accredited institutions for the purposes of the Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’) Scheme with a view to obtaining 16 CPD points per year for three years starting from 15 August 2013; (b) read online lectures and materials for civil and criminal litigation practice, insolvency practice, real estate practice and family law practice for the ‘Preparatory Course leading to Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations’ 2013 within six months from 15 August 2013; and (c) read the annual issue of the Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases for three years starting from 15 August 2013: at [27] to [29] .

[Observation: This was the first occasion where such additional conditions had been imposed. Further refinements might be required in light of the experience gained or new circumstances which might arise: at [30] .]

Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Law Society of Singapore [2007] 3 SLR (R) 704; [2007] 3 SLR 704 (refd)

Law Society of Singapore v Narindar Singh s/o Malagar Singh [1997] 3 SLR (R) 334; [1998] 1 SLR 328 (refd)

Narindar Singh s/o Malagar Singh v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 318; [1996] 3 SLR 639 (refd)

Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore [2007] 4 SLR (R) 641; [2007] 4 SLR 641 (refd)

Nathan Edmund v Law Society of Singapore [2013] 1 SLR 719 (distd)

Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh v Law Society of Singapore [2011] 1 SLR 645 (refd)

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) ss 83, 94 A

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 78 (1) , 102 (1)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 34, 420, 511

Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 5 (a) (i)

Davinder Singh SC, Pardeep Singh Khosa and Timothy Lin (Drew & Napier LLC) for the applicant

KAnparasan and Sim Hui Lin Christine (Khattar Wong LLP) for the respondent

Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck SC and Dominic Zou for the Attorney-General.

Chao Hick Tin JA

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

Introduction

1 This was an application by one Narindar Singh (‘the Applicant’) for reinstatement onto the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court (‘the Roll’) pursuant to s 102 (1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (‘the LPA’). He was struck off the Roll on 3 October 1997 for a conviction under s 5 (a) (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (‘the PCA’). Both the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore (‘the Law Society’) had no objection to the Applicant's reinstatement onto the Roll, subject to certain conditions being imposed with which the Applicant was willing to comply. At the conclusion of the hearing, we allowed the application subject to certain additional conditions. These grounds are issued to explain, in particular, our rationale for the imposition of the additional conditions.

2 At this juncture we would pause to state that this was the Applicant's second attempt at seeking reinstatement onto the Roll. His first unsuccessful attempt was made on 7 September 2007 (‘the first application’), about nine years and 11 months after he was struck off.

Cause for striking off

3 The Applicant is now 62 years of age. At the date he made this application he had been struck off the Roll for 15½years. He was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court on 9 April 1975. The specific matter which led to him being struck off the Roll occurred when he was practising as a sole proprietor of his own law firm, M/s NSKang, and was assigned by the Registrar of the Supreme Court to draft a petition for clemency for one of a pair of co-accused persons who had been jointly convicted and sentenced to suffer...