Re Tay Jie Qi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 09 March 2023
• Docket Number: Admission of Advocates and Solicitors Nos 410 and 572 of 2022
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Tay Jie Qi and another matter

[2023] SGHC 59

Sundaresh Menon CJ

Admission of Advocates and Solicitors Nos 410 and 572 of 2022

General Division of the High Court

Legal Profession — Admission — Applicants who disclosed previous wrongdoings applying to be admitted as advocates and solicitors in Singapore — Whether applicants could be considered fit and proper persons to be admitted

Held, allowing the applications:

(1) The central inquiry in admission applications was whether the applicant in question was suitable for admission in terms of her character. This would entail consideration of all the relevant circumstances including: (a) the circumstances of the applicant's misconduct; (b) her conduct in the course of any investigations that might have been held in connection with the misconduct; (c) the nature and extent of and the circumstances surrounding the initial and subsequent disclosures about the misconduct made by the applicant in her application for admission; (d) any evidence of remorse; and (e) any evidence of rehabilitation including steps that had been planned or already taken towards achieving the applicant's rehabilitation: at [3].

(2) In cases where a significant period had elapsed since the applicant's wrongdoing, the last two factors (namely, evidence of remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation) might take on particular importance in determining whether any further deferment of the applicant's admission was necessary: at [4].

(3) The purpose of deferring an admission application was rehabilitative, not punitive. Where an applicant had, through a consistent course of conduct, demonstrated that she had turned over a new leaf, there would be no need or even basis for any further deferment of her admission application to punish her. In each case, the need for such a deferment should be carefully assessed. It should not be insisted upon as a matter of routine. And, if appropriate, the request for an adjournment should be explained so that the applicant could understand the purpose of the deferment and what she had to do to make the best use of that time: at [4] and [30].

(4) Both Ms Tay and Ms Low had maintained a clean record since the incidents in question. Both had graduated from Singapore Management University (“SMU”) and passed their respective Part B examinations without any further suggestion of dishonesty or misconduct. The intervening period of time between their respective wrongdoings and admission applications was a weighty factor because it served as evidence of their genuine remorse and capacity for change and rehabilitation: at [15], [16] and [30].

(5) Both Ms Tay and Ms Low also demonstrated complete candour and forthrightness in confronting their respective mistakes. Ms Tay co-operated fully during SMU's investigations in 2019 and admitted to her act of plagiarism. Ms Low also immediately confessed to shoplifting, co-operated with the police and returned the eyeshadow palette. Both also disclosed their respective wrongdoing to the court and the stakeholders at the first opportunity in their respective admission affidavits, despite such information not otherwise being in the public domain: at [17], [18] and [31].

(6) Given that both applicants had demonstrated remorse and sufficient capacity for change and rehabilitation, no further deferment of their admission applications was necessary: at [33].

Case(s) referred to

Monisha Devaraj, Re[2022] 5 SLR 638 (refd)

Tay Quan Li Leon, Re[2022] 5 SLR 896 (refd)

Wong Wai Loong Sean, Re[2022] SGHC 237 (refd)

Facts

The applicants in HC/AAS 410/2022 (“AAS 410”) and HC/AAS 572/2022 (“AAS 572”), Ms Tay Jie Qi (“Ms Tay”) and Ms Low Shauna (“Ms Low”) respectively, committed certain wrongdoings some years before their respective admission applications. Ms Tay committed plagiarism in one of her modules in her second year of university in 2019. Ms Low was caught stealing an eyeshadow palette, worth around $50, from the Sephora store at ION Orchard sometime between 2016 to 2017.

Both applicants maintained a clean record after these acts. They duly sat for and passed their Part B examinations and satisfactorily completed their training contracts. They also voluntarily disclosed their wrongdoings in their respective admission affidavits, despite such information not otherwise being in the public domain.

The admission hearings for AAS 410 and AAS 572 were originally fixed on 23 August 2022 and 9 November 2022 respectively. Following the applicants' disclosures of the acts in question, the Attorney-General's Chambers (“AGC”) invited them to agree to adjourn their admission hearings, which they both did. The issue before the court was whether the applicants could be considered fit and proper persons to be admitted as advocates and solicitors in Singapore.

Randhawa Ravinderpal Singh s/o Savinder Singh Randhawa and Yeo Kee Teng Mark (Kalco Law LLC) for the applicant in HC/AAS 410/2022;

Mansurhusain Akbar Hussein and Remesha Chandran Pillai (Jacob Mansur & Pillai) for the applicant in HC/AAS 572/2022;

Jeyendran Jeyapal, Lee Hui Min, Clement LimandLum Qian Wei(Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Attorney-General;

Andrew Chua Ruiming (Drew & Napier LLC), Sui Yi Siong (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) andDarryl Chew Zijie (Chia Wong Partnership LLC) for the Law Society of Singapore;

Avery Chong Soon Yong (Avery Chong Law Practice) for the Singapore Institute of Legal Education.

9 March 2023

Sundaresh Menon CJ(delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

Introduction

1 The present applications, HC/AAS 410/2022 (“AAS 410”) and HC/AAS 572/2022 (“AAS 572”), are unrelated to the series of cases that arose out of the controversy surrounding the 2020 Part B examinations, though they potentially raise some broadly similar issues. Unlike the applicants in Re Tay Quan Li Leon[2022] 5 SLR 896 (“Re Leon Tay”), Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters[2022] SGHC 237 (“Re Wong Wai Loong Sean”) and Re Monisha Devaraj and other matters[2022] 5 SLR 638 (“Re Monisha Devaraj”), the two applicants before me did not cheat in their Part B examinations. Instead, they committed certain wrongdoings some years before their respective applications to be admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors. This affords me the opportunity to view their earlier actions with the benefit of the perspective that comes from the fact that there has been some distance between the time of their wrongdoing and the time of their applications for admission. It is also noteworthy...