Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Judgment Date05 October 2006
Date05 October 2006
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 511 of 2006

[2006] SGHC 179

High Court

V K Rajah J

Originating Summons No 511 of 2006

Wong Keng Leong Rayney
Plaintiff
and
Law Society of Singapore
Defendant

N Sreenivasan and Collin Choo (Straits Law Practice LLC) for the applicant

Michael Hwang SC (Law Society of Singapore) for the respondent

Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck (Attorney-General's Chambers) as amicus curiae.

AG v Ng Hock Guan [2004] 3 SLR (R) 253; [2004] 3 SLR 253 (folld)

Ajmer Singh v PP [1985-1986] SLR (R) 1030; [1986] SLR 454 (refd)

Amran bin Eusuff v PP [2002] SGCA 20 (refd)

Carolyn Tan Beng Hui v Law Society of Singapore [1999] SGHC 23 (folld)

Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts [1996] 1 SLR (R) 294; [1996] 1 SLR 609 (folld)

Cheng Swee Tiang v PP [1964] MLJ 291 (folld)

Haw Tua Tau v PP [1981-1982] SLR (R) 133; [1980-1981] SLR 73 (refd)

How Poh Sun v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 270; [1991] SLR 220 (folld)

IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 (folld)

Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v The Queen [1955] AC 197 (refd)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v Public Service Commission [2000] SGHC 162 (folld)

Lau Liat Meng v Disciplinary Committee [1965-1967] SLR (R) 641; [1965-1968] SLR 8 (folld)

Law Society of Singapore v Chia Shih Ching James [1983-1984] SLR (R) 596; [1984-1985] SLR 53 (folld)

Law Society of Singapore v Lim Cheong Peng [2006] 4 SLR (R) 360; [2006] 4 SLR 360 (folld)

Ong Chin Keat Jeffrey v PP [2004] 4 SLR (R) 483; [2004] 4 SLR 483 (refd)

Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR (R) 133; [2001] 1 SLR 644 (folld)

Public Trustee v By Products Traders Pte Ltd [2005] 3 SLR (R) 449; [2005] 3 SLR 449 (refd)

R v Commissioners for the Special Purposes of Income Tax Acts, ex parte Stipplechoice [1985] 2 All ER 465 (distd)

Regina v Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd, ex parte Mordens Ltd (1991) 3 Admin LR 254 (folld)

Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation (1994) 6 Admin LR 714 (folld)

Regina v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex parte Merrill [1989] 1 WLR 1077 (folld)

Regina v Horseferry Road Justices, ex parte Independent Broadcasting Authority [1987] 1 QB 54 (distd)

Regina v Looseley; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2000) [2001] 1 WLR 2060 (refd)

Regina v Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman, ex parte The Burns-Anderson Independent Network plc (21 January 1997) (Court of Appeal (Civil Division), UK) (folld)

Regina v Sang [1980] AC 402 (refd)

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (1987) 19 HLR 161 (distd)

Regina v Tickell, ex parte London Borough of Greenwich (12 December 1986) (Court of Appeal (Civil Division), UK) (distd)

Serif Systems Ltd, Re (15 April 1997) (Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List), UK) (folld)

Singh Kalpanath, Re [1992] 1 SLR (R) 595; [1992] 2 SLR 639 (refd)

SM Summit Holdings Ltd v PP [1997] 3 SLR (R) 138; [1997] 3 SLR 922 (folld)

Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore [1994] 2 SLR (R) 485; [1994] 2 SLR 476 (refd)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 8, 9, 14

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) ss 83 (2) (h), 87 (2), 90 (1)

Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Rev Ed) s 11A (2) (b)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 415

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1

Administrative Law–Disciplinary tribunals–Application for leave to seek judicial review of certain findings made by Disciplinary Committee before final determination by Disciplinary Committee made–Whether application for leave to seek judicial review premature–Development of concept of prematurity–Administrative Law–Judicial review–Threshold for leave to seek judicial review–Matters susceptible to judicial review–Difference between judicial review and appeal–Evidence–Admissibility of evidence–Evidence obtained by means of private entrapment–Distinction between state and private entrapment–Relevance of nature of illegality of conduct in procuring evidence–Whether such evidence inadmissible–Whether court having discretion to reject evidence–Relevance of motive of complainant–When motive can have probative value

The applicant was an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore for 22 years. The complainant (“Lee”) lodged a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) alleging that the applicant had agreed to grant her a referral fee for having procured work for the applicant's firm. It appeared that an undisclosed law firm had employed one Anthony Tan (“Tan”) to investigate whether certain competing law firms were offering referral fees to estate agents in order to attract more referrals, thereby illegitimately boosting their business. Lee was instructed by Tan to pose as an estate agent for a fictitious prospective purchaser in an effort to probe whether the applicant would fall for the bait. Unknown to the applicant, his meetings with Lee had been secretly recorded (“the recorded conversations”) and these recordings formed a substantial part of the evidence adduced by the Law Society in its case against the applicant in proceedings before a Disciplinary Committee (“the DC”).

At the conclusion of the Law Society's case before the DC, the applicant submitted that there was no case to answer. This submission, in turn, depended on whether Lee's evidence should be excluded because it had been obtained by illegal or improper means. The DC disagreed with the applicant's submissions and refused to exclude Lee's evidence. Once Lee's evidence was admitted, the DC found that a prima facie case against the applicant had been established and, accordingly, called the applicant to enter his defence. Dissatisfied, the applicant brought an application for leave to seek judicial review of the DC's findings, in addition to various other orders including an order that Tan disclose the identity of the person who employed him and an order quashing, inter alia, the DC's decision not to exclude Lee's evidence and the recorded conversations.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The approach of the courts in respect of challenges made before a final determination by the tribunal of first instance was to almost invariably view them as premature and decline judicial review. This principle applied equally to disciplinary hearings. However, there were exceptional circumstances where the mechanical application of the concept of prematurity could result in irreparable harm to the applicant. In such exceptional cases, it was remiss to deny the applicant the option of judicial review: at [15], [16] and [19].

(2) To direct Tan to disclose the identity of his client was a procedural and evidential issue well within the discretionary remit of the DC. As it stood, the applicant had not put forward any cogent reason why the identity of Tan's client was particularly important to his case. In any event, it was always open to the applicant to subpoena and seek permission to ask leading questions of any firm or lawyer that it believed was involved in any plot against him: at [26].

(3) That a clean legal argument might be presented to the reviewing court was not by itself a sufficient reason to grant leave for judicial review. It was plain that the applicant was challenging a decision to admit and/or exclude evidence, which did not go to the jurisdiction of the DC or concern any hefty constitutional implications. Therefore, while the present applicant might raise a clean question of law, this by itself did not constitute an exceptional case: at [32] to [34].

(4) That the applicant might have to face the Court of Three Judges did not, ipso facto, constitute permanent prejudice to the applicant. In fact, the availability of an appeal to the Court of Three Judges was a real and valid reason not to intervene by way of judicial review at this stage in this matter: at [35].

(5) The cost savings of averting an appeal could not be assessed in isolation; it had to be calibrated and evaluated against the costs and consequences involved in initiating the process for judicial review as well. There was a significant cost to granting this application that was not outweighed by the inconvenience, embarrassment and costs that the applicant might incur if the proceedings before the DC were allowed to run their usual course: at [39] and [42].

(6) The objection to the admission of unlawfully obtained evidence did not hinge on the possibility that the trial itself might become procedurally or substantively tainted. It was because the courts should not invariably condone a prosecution of allegedly unlawful conduct on the accused's part when the evidence necessary to sustain a conviction was itself obtained through illegal and unlawful means: at [52].

(7) There could be particularly egregious instances of misconduct where the courts should reject evidence that had been procured in a manner that might be inimically repellent to the integrity of the administration of justice. This would protect those who should not be convicted contrary to the public's sense of justice: at [64].

(8) It would be entirely improper to bring a case stated from a DC hearing to the High Court. The case stated was a specialised procedure and available only when provided for in law. In this respect, there was no provision in the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) allowing any party to bring a case stated to the High Court: at [78].

(9) There was a clear distinction between the powers that a superior court exercised in judicial reviews and appeals. While judicial reviews were almost invariably limited to examining the legality of the decision, an appellate court might in limited circumstances evaluate the substantive merits of the decision arrived at by the tribunal. This distinction between appeals and judicial reviews applied to disciplinary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 6 September 2007
    ...it was aborted. Background The charge 3 The relevant facts of this case are set out in Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore [2006] 4 SLR 934 (“Rayney Wong”). Briefly, the appellant is an advocate and solicitor of about 22 years’ seniority and a partner in a law firm. The Law So......
  • Muhammad bin Kadar v PP
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 5 July 2011
    ......The trial, one of the longest in the Singapore judiciary’s. annals, took ... Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis [2008]. ... Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of. ......
  • Yip Kok Seng v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 August 2010
    ...[1998] 3 MLJ 137 (refd) Vine v National Dock Labour Board [1957] AC 488 (refd) Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore [2006] 4 SLR (R) 934; [2006] 4 SLR 934 (folld) YAB Dato' Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir v YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu (AG Malaysia, intervener) [2009] 4 MLJ 24 (r......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Leong Pek Gan
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 19 August 2016
    ...to refer to the comment by V K Rajah J in the Singapore High Court decision of Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore [2006] 4 SLR(R) 934 that “[t]he rules of ethics, as articulated in [the then equivalent of] the LPA, its subsidiary legislation and the Law Society Practice Direc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • THE COURT'S DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES AND EMERGING IMPLICATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL SPHERE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...of the administration of justice” (disagreeing with V K Rajah J (as he then was) in Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore[2006] 4 SLR(R) 934. See also Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 at [150(a)]. 96 This is because X is being prosecuted on the ......
  • The Judicial Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence: Perspectives from an Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The Nbr. 16-4, October 2012
    • 1 October 2012
    ...of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 at [124]–[127]. See also Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore [2006] 4 SLR(R) 934 at 92 Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205 at [68].93 See also Tapper, above n. 3 at 196–7, where R v Sang [1980] 1 AC 4......
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...help guide the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 1.6 This issue was canvassed in Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore[2006] 4 SLR 934 where the applicant, an advocate and solicitor, was subject to proceedings before a disciplinary committee (‘DC’) of the Law Society which f......
  • Case Note
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 December 2012
    ...of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 at [124]–[127]. See also Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore[2006] 4 SLR(R) 934 at [64]. 68 See, for example, Ian Dennis, The Law of Evidence (Oxford University Press, 2nd Ed, 2002) at pp 24–28; Peter Mirfield, Silence, Co......
  • 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