Re Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 17 August 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 180
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2004
• Published date: 19 August 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Lok Vi Ming and Koh Kia Jeng (Rodyk and Davidson),Cheryl Chia (State Counsel)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Application for reinstatement on the roll of advocates and solicitors,Applicant struck off the roll after conviction for offence implying defect of character which made him unfit for legal profession,Application for reinstatement made almost ten years after striking off,Whether application was premature,Whether applicant proved that he was fit to be restored on the roll,s 102 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 180

17 August 2004

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 This was an application by Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam (“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) (“the LPA”). The applicant had been struck off the roll on 31 August 1994, after his conviction for an offence implying a defect of character which made him unfit for the legal profession. We dismissed his application for reinstatement, and now give our reasons.

Facts

2 The applicant was called as a barrister-at-law of England in 1984 and admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore on 11 December 1985. After being called to the Singapore Bar, he commenced practice in his own firm, Guru & Partners.

3 The facts leading to the applicant’s striking off the roll were as follows. In late January 1989, his friend and family doctor, Dr Ramaswami s/o RV Narasimhalu Naidu (“Dr Ramaswami”), agreed to provide medical certificates to any of the applicant’s clients who wished to absent themselves from court, even if they were not ill. Some of the applicant’s clients took advantage of his standing arrangement with Dr Ramaswami, including one Teo In Hin (“Teo”).

4 Teo had gone to the applicant to seek legal advice a few days before 3 December 1990, the date his trial was to commence at the Subordinate Courts. The applicant told Teo to seek an adjournment on the first day of trial, instigating him to obtain a medical certificate from Dr Ramaswami to certify that he was unfit to attend court. On 3 December 1990, Teo went to see Dr Ramaswami. After ascertaining that Teo’s trial was fixed for hearing on 3 and 4 December 1990, Dr Ramaswami issued him a medical certificate certifying that he was unfit to attend court on those two days, even though Teo was not ill. The applicant tendered Teo’s medical certificate to the court, and his case was adjourned.

5 The applicant was subsequently charged with abetting Teo in intentionally omitting to attend at the Subordinate Courts in obedience to an order by the court, an offence punishable under s 174 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). He pleaded guilty. Seven other similar charges were taken into consideration, and he was sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment and fined $1,000. He paid the fine and served his sentence.

6 Following the applicant’s conviction, The Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) commenced disciplinary proceedings against him. On 30 May 1994, the disciplinary committee concluded that cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action to be taken against him. As a result, the Law Society made an application under s 98(1) of the LPA for the applicant to show cause as to why he should not be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

7 The applicant did not attend the show cause proceedings on 31 August 1994. The Court of Three Judges found that the nature of his offence implied a defect of character which made him unfit for the legal profession under s 83(2)(a) of the LPA. He was accordingly struck off the roll. After a lapse of some nine years and 11 months, the applicant filed the present motion for reinstatement.

The application

8 The replacement on the roll of any advocate and solicitor who has been struck off is governed by s 102 of the LPA:

(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 motion, supported by affidavit, before a court of 3 Judges of the Supreme Court of whom the Chief Justice shall be one.

(3) Notice of the motion shall be served on the Society which shall —

(a) appear at the hearing of the motion; 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 Councils are relevant to be considered or to be investigated in...