Re Gopalan Nair

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin J
• Judgment Date: 23 September 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 250
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 570 of 1991
• Date: 23 September 1992
• Year: 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Madan DT Assomull (Assomull Pereira & Partners)
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 250
• Defendant Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Professional conduct,Letters to Attorney General demanding answers to questions,ss 83(2)(h) & 85(3)(b)Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed),Legal Profession,Grossly improper conduct,Whether conduct complained of related to anything done by the respondent in his professional capacity -Whether act constituted misconduct which if done in England would render respondent liable to be disbarred or struck off the roll of court or suspended from practice,Whether letters threatening

Cur Adv Vult

These show cause proceedings against the respondent arise out of two letters written by him to the then Attorney General, Mr Tan Boon Teik (`the A-G`). As everything turns on the contents of the two letters, we shall set them out in full. The first letter dated 5 September 1989, written on plain paper but with a care of address of his law firm, is in these terms:

My name is Gopalan Nair, an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, bearing NRIC No 0006711C and of the aforesaid address.

I have read in the latest edition of The Hammer , a publication of the Workers` Party, that at Mr JB Jeyaretnam`s appeal, namely, Privy Council Appeal No 10 of 1988, JB Jeyaretnam v Law Society of Singapore , their Lordships of the Privy Council had expressly asked counsel for the Law Society whether:

(1) The Attorney General was aware that the convictions against Mr Jeyaretnam are to be considered.

(2) The Attorney General had made any application to be heard in the proceedings.

The Hammer has published and stated that the said counsel`s reply was that the Attorney General was indeed aware and that the Attorney General had not made any request to be heard.

Despite this, it appears that you by yourself or through others have accused the Privy Council of not giving you a fair hearing in that you have been denied the opportunity to be heard during the hearing of the appeal and as a result the Privy Council has not complied with the rules of natural justice.

In view of the fact that your allegations are completely contrary to that of the counsel for the Law Society at the hearing of the appeal at the Privy Council, please let me know within 14 days from the date of this letter the following:

(1) Whether the counsel for the Law Society had lied when he had said that you were aware that the Privy Council was going to examine Mr Jeyaretnam`s convictions and you in fact had made no application to attend.

(2) Whether you in fact knew that the convictions were to be examined and you indeed did not make any application to attend.

(3) If you knew and in fact did not make any application to attend, why did you complain that you were not given the opportunity to attend and allege that the Privy Council had acted contrary to the rules of natural justice.

Since you are an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, of which I am one, and as you are the highest government legal officer in the land, I have a right to demand from you, in your capacity as the Attorney General, answers to these my aforesaid questions which touch upon my profession.

I shall be grateful to have your replies to the above within 14 days. If you need more time to reply, you may please write to me within 14 days requesting such extension of time, which I shall be pleased to give provided such request is reasonable.

Both this letter and the envelope containing this letter have prominently printed on them the words `Private and Confidential`.

You are hereby put on notice that if I do not hear from you as stated aforesaid, this letter will stand as an `open letter` and this letter will no longer be treated as privileged communication and I shall publish it.

To remove any doubt, this letter has been written by me alone, for which I alone take full responsibility and it has not been written at the instigation or the request of Mr JB Jeyaretnam or the Workers` Party, or anyone else.

On 14 September 1989 the A-G replied to the respondent advising the latter that he was never a party to the disciplinary proceedings before the Privy Council between JB Jeyaretnam and the Law Society. As this reply of the A-G is vital to a proper appreciation of the complaint made against the respondent, we shall similarly set it out in full.

I have your letter of 5 September 1989.

Your letter is scurrilous. In my advice to the government on the implications of the Privy Council`s judgment in JB Jeyaretnam v Law Society of Singapore , I had given my professional opinion on the true effect of their Lordships` findings. I expressly stated that the judgment cannot in any way affect those convictions - a point which the Lordships of the Privy Council had themselves admitted. I had further expressly stated that I had been denied an opportunity of being heard when their Lordships commented on those convictions; that accordingly, the Privy Council had not complied with the rules of natural justice. These are facts.

Whatever is printed in The Hammer is of no concern to me. If you wish to ascertain the veracity of statements made in that publication, you should ask its publishers. It is not for me to advise you when and where you can seek such confirmation as to the truth or otherwise of statements that are published in The Hammer .

In any event, what transpired before the Privy Council between the counsel for the Law Society and the Lordships of the Privy Council does not concern me. I was never a party to those proceedings. I did not give, nor was I in any position to give, any instructions to any counsel relating to any matter that may have been discussed before the Privy Council in that case. Yet on the assumption that the statements in The Hammer are correct, you have made demands of me and have seen fit to write to me in terms which amount to uttering threats against me.

Notwithstanding the clarification given in that letter of the A-G, the respondent wrote a further letter (similarly on plain paper with the care of address) to the

A-G dated 20 September 1989 in these terms:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 14 September 1989. My letter to you dated 5 September 1989 was not scurrilous. Neither have I made any improper demands upon you or threatened you.

The Hammer in its No 3, 1989 issue says that `... their Lordships in the Privy Council had specifically enquired whether the Attorney General of Singapore was aware that the correctness of the convictions was being challenged and whether he had made any request to be heard ... Counsel for the Law Society confirmed to their Lordships in the Privy Council that the Attorney General was indeed aware but had made no request at all to be heard.` Similar allegations also have apeared in an article by Bernard Levin in The Times , a UK Newspaper of 19 June 1989. Further, it is published in No 1, 1989 issue of The Hammer that Mr JB Jeyaretnam had written to Professor Jayakumar, the Minister for Home Affairs in a letter dated 25 January 1989 asking him why he had alleged that the Privy Council had not heard the Public Prosecutor suggesting that the Privy Council did not comply with natural justice when in fact their Lordships had expressly asked counsel for the Law Society the questions aforementioned. The Hammer in this article further states that Mr Goh Joon Seng, the solicitor for the Law Society was present in court and was aware of what had happened. Do you, Mr Attorney General, claim that you have not asked Mr Goh Joon Seng about this? These allegations are both clear and specific about what had transpired. Surely, as an advocate and solicitor, I have the right to ask you for an explanation on these specific allegations. You have completely avoided these my specific questions and have failed to answer any of them.

In addition to my request that you answer all the questions earlier asked, and including those asked in this letter aforesaid, I shall be grateful if you would answer the following additional questions which are related to those earlier mentioned:

(1) Whether you were aware of the dates of the hearing of the appeal.

(2) Whether or not you considered it necessary to have applied to be heard.

I am surprised to hear what is printed in The Hammer is of no concern to you. According to its editor, The Hammer reaches an estimated 200,000 readers, members of the general public, with each issue. I need not say that The Times of England has a wide circulation both in England and worldwide. When allegations such as these are made which are completely contrary to what you claim, you should, in your capacity of the Attorney General, be very much concerned.

I cannot understand your statement that what transpired before the Privy Council between counsel for the Law Society and their Lordships does not concern you. Your office prosecuted Mr Jeyaretnam. He was convicted through your prosecution. Those convictions were to be examined by their Lordships. In that examination you are clearly an interested party. Therefore, their Lordships are alleged to have expressly enquired whether you had made any application to attend. If you had applied, their Lordships would have allowed you to attend and be heard. Otherwise, their Lordships would not have allegedly even asked in the first place. Could you therefore explain what you mean when you say that the proceedings between Law Society counsel and the Privy Council do not concern you.

If what the editor of The Hammer says is correct, then it would be incorrect for you to say that you were denied an opportunity of being heard before their Lordships. It would appear that in your failure to apply to be heard, you never wanted to be heard at all. No question of denial at all.

I am not making any improper demand, nor am I threatening you when I say that I would like a reply to my specific questions within 14 days from date of this letter. Failing a satisfactory reply from you within this time, I intend to publish the correspondence between us.

I am a member of an honourable profession, the law, and I consider my questions to you a matter of honour, and if I find in my judgment that, this correspondence has to be published then that too is a question of honour, from which I will not be cowed.

Both this letter and the envelope containing it have prominently printed on them the words `Private and Confidential` and `For the attention of Mr Tan Boon Teik only.`

On 27 September 1989,...