The Law Society of Singapore v Narinder Singh s/o Malagar Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 28 October 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 270
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 464 of 1997
• Date: 28 October 1997
• Year: 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: K Bala Chandran and Parhana Moreta (Mallal & Namazie)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 270
• Defendant Counsel: Giam Chin Toon SC (Wee Swee Teow & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether conviction fell within meaning of s 83(2)(a) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed),Show cause action,Whether respondent should be struck off the rolls,Respondent convicted of criminal offence under s 5(a)(i) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed),Legal Profession,Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed) s 5(a)(i),Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed) ss 83(1), 83(2)(a), 83(5) & 94A

Judgment:

KARTHIGESU JA

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): On 3 October 1997 we ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. We now give our reasons for doing so.

2.The respondent was convicted in the subordinate courts on the following charge, in DAC No 12838/95:

You, Narinder Singh s/o Malagar Singh, are charged that you in conjunction with one Hartej Singh Sidhu, a condemned prisoner, on 18 May 1995, at or about 5pm, at Changi Prison, Jalan Awan, Singapore, did corruptly solicit for the family of the said Hartej Singh Sidhu, a gratification, to wit, a sum of $100,000 from one Baldev Singh, the son of another condemned prisoner, Sarjit Singh s/o Anokh Singh, on account of Hartej Singh Sidhu exonerating the said Sarjit Singh s/o Anokh Singh by his signed statement, to wit,

`I, Hartej Singh c/o Changi Prison Cond No 476/93 hereby state that Sarjit Singh c/o Changi Prison Cond No 477/93 is innocent and was not involved in the drug trafficking transaction. The transaction was done by me solely.`

of any complicity in the drug trafficking transaction concerned in Criminal Case No 52 of 1991 and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 5(a)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed).

3.The learned district judge, in his grounds of decision dated 4 May 1996, found the following facts. One Hartej Singh (Hartej) had been convicted and sentenced to death for drug trafficking together with one Sarjit Singh (Sarjit). Their clemency petitions to the President had been rejected and they were to be executed on 19 May 1995. The respondent as assigned counsel represented Hartej in his unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal and his clemency petition. Sarjit was represented by another lawyer, NK Rajah (Rajah).

4.On 18 May 1995, the day before the execution, the respondent and Rajah were asked to see their clients in Changi Prison by Sarjit`s relatives who were hopeful that Hartej would make a confession which would save Sarjit from execution. After both lawyers had arrived at the prison, Hartej initially refused to make a confession. However, he later signed a confession drafted by Rajah (in the terms described above in the charge against the respondent) and handed it to the respondent. The lawyers then left the prison along with Sarjit`s relatives. As they were walking out, the respondent told Rajah that his instructions were not to hand over the confession unless a sum of $100,000 was paid to Hartej`s family.

5.At a waiting area outside the main gate of the prison, the respondent asked Rajah and one Baldev Singh (Baldev), Sarjit`s son, to come over to him. The respondent again said that his instruction from Hartej was not to hand over the confession until a sum of $100,000 was paid to Hartej`s family. Baldev was shocked at the amount and asked if there was any guarantee that the confession would save his father from execution. The respondent told him there was no such guarantee. Rajah dissuaded Baldev from accepting the respondent`s offer, telling him that it would not save his father because of the other evidence which had been adduced against him at his trial.

6.On the evening of that day, Baldev visited the respondent in his office to seek his help in staying the execution. The respondent asked him if his family had agreed to Hartej`s demand. In response to Baldev`s queries, the respondent again told him that there was no guarantee that the confession would save Sarjit from...