The Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence

JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Judgment Date01 September 2000
Neutral Citation[2000] SGHC 180
Citation[2000] SGHC 180
Defendant CounselRespondent absent
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselWong Siew Hong and Hemalatha d/o Silwaraju (Yeo Wong & Thian)
Date01 September 2000
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 541 of 2000
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether length of standing a mitigating factor,Whether advocate & solicitor unfit for legal profession,ss 83(1), 83(2)(a), 94A & 98(1) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Rev Ed),Advocate & solicitor under stress and medication,Whether offence not done in capacity as lawyer relevant,Legal Profession,Whether stress a mitigating factor,Show cause action,Advocate & solicitor of 15 years' standing convicted of theft in dwelling

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): This was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (`the applicant`) pursuant to s 94A read with s 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) (`the LPA`) for the respondent to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the provisions of s 83(2)(a) of the LPA on account of his criminal conviction.

The respondent was not present nor represented at the proceedings before us.
Counsel for the applicant informed the court that the respondent had indicated that he did not intend to show cause. At the close of the proceedings, we ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors and now give our reasons.

The facts

The respondent was 39 years old and an advocate and solicitor of 15 years` standing, having been admitted to practice on 12 June 1985. At all material times, he was practising as the proprietor of the law firm of Ng Thin Wah & Co.

On 17 November 1999, the respondent pleaded guilty to and was convicted on one count of theft in a dwelling-place punishable under s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).
He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two months, which sentence has since been served. The conviction for theft arose out of the following facts. On 16 December 1998 at about 7.50pm, at Carrefour supermarket located at Suntec City Mall, the respondent was observed to be behaving suspiciously by a security officer of the Carrefour Supermarket. In particular, he was observed to have placed some items into a plastic bag inside a shopping trolley at various sections of the supermarket. The respondent later proceeded to the cashier`s counter and paid for some items amounting to about $57. He was stopped after leaving the cashier`s counter and a check was conducted on the contents of the shopping trolley. A total of nine unpaid items amounting to $478.50 were found in two plastic bags inside the trolley. These consisted of assorted items including a VCD player, VCDs, food items and a toy. The respondent was detained and later arrested by the police. The unpaid items recovered from the respondent formed the subject-matter of a charge under s 380 of the Penal Code.

The show cause proceedings

The present proceedings arose pursuant to s 94A read with s 98(1) of the LPA, under which it was mandatory for the Law Society to proceed with an application for the respondent to show cause upon his conviction for an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. The Law Society contended that due cause had been shown for disciplinary action to be taken against the respondent under ss 83(1) and 83(2)(a) of the LPA which provide as follows:

(1) All advocates and solicitors shall be subject to the control of the Supreme Court and shall be liable on due cause shown to be struck off the roll or suspended from practice for any period not exceeding 5 years or censured.

(2) Such due cause may be shown by proof that an advocate and solicitor -

(a) has been convicted of a criminal offence, implying a defect of character which makes him unfit for his profession.

...



By virtue of s 83(6) of the LPA, the respondent`s conviction must be accepted as `final and conclusive`.
As such, it was not open to the respondent or the court to go behind his conviction: Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick [1999] 4 SLR 168 at [para ] 12; Re Mohomed Jiffry Muljee [1994] 3 SLR 520 at p 523, Law Society of Singapore v Narmal Singh [1996] 2 SLR 184 at p 186.

In this regard, the nature of the offence is material as not every violation of the criminal law implies a defect of character which makes the offender unfit for his profession: Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick , supra, at [para ] 13, following Re Weare, A Solicitor [1893] 2 QB 439 at p 445.
Rather, the offence must be of such a character that it is expedient for the protection of the public and the preservation of the good name of the profession to remove the solicitor from the roll or from practice: Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen [2000] 1 SLR 234 at [para ] 25; Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick , supra, at [para ] 13.

Apart from the nature of the offence, the sentence imposed by the court must also be taken into consideration.
We reiterated this position in our recent decision in Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen , supra, at [para ] 26:

In Tham Yu Xian Rick [at [para ] 14, 15], we accepted that in addition to considering the nature of the offence, the court is also entitled to take into account the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence by having regard to the actual penalty imposed by the sentencing court. We said there that the nature of the crime, though important, is not and cannot be conclusivesince an offence may range over a multitude of different circumstances, from the serious to the relatively condonable. In the premises, it is both the penalty as well as the nature of the offence which must be looked at in determining whether the conviction unfits a solicitor for his profession. ... [Emphasis added.]



This was because the penalty imposed by the sentencing court served as a good indication of the moral obliquity or turpitude involved in the solicitor`s conduct: Ratnam v Law Society of Singapore SLR 39 at p 52, cited with approval in Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick , supra, at [para ] 15.


Applying
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Law Society of Singapore v Gopalan Nair
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 de agosto de 2011
    ...committed led to the conclusion that a serious penalty had to be imposed: at [23]. Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence [2000] 3 SLR (R) 23; [2000] 4 SLR 88 (folld) Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey [1999] 3 SLR (R) 966; [2000] 1 SLR 361 (refd) Law Society of S......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Lim Yee Kai
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 de janeiro de 2001
    ...... Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing [2000] 2 SLR 165 , and Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence [2000] 4 SLR 88 .It is trite law that where a solicitor has acted dishonestly, ......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Choy Chee Yean
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 25 de maio de 2010
    ...he or she be struck off the roll (see, for example, the decisions of this court in Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence [2000] 3 SLR(R) 23 (“Amdad Hussein Lawrence”); Law Society of Singapore v Ong Lilian [2005] SGHC 187 (“Ong Lilian”); and Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Ca......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 de agosto de 2003
    ...Yu Xian Rick [1999] 4 SLR 168 at 176; Re Weare, A Solicitor [1893] 2 QB 439 at 442 and Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence [2000] 4 SLR 88 (theft of goods by a solicitor from a supermarket). The offence must be of such a nature that it is expedient for the protection of the pu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT