The Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 01 September 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 180
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 180
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Siew Hong and Hemalatha d/o Silwaraju (Yeo Wong & Thian)
• Date: 01 September 2000
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 541 of 2000
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent absent
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Subject Matter: Whether 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...