Author: SMU Lexicon

In a recent 2023 case, the General Division of the High Court ("HC") had to consider whether the applicant, who had committed plagiarism in respect of a law school assignment, could be admitted to the Singapore Bar. The HC reiterated that where there is no question as to the competence or qualifications of the applicant, the relevant central inquiry is whether the applicant is suitable for admission in terms of his character. Finding that the applicant continued to demonstrate a lack of insight into the ethical implications of his misconduct, the HC granted him leave to withdraw his application for admission, subject to his undertaking not to bring a fresh application for admission in Singapore or to the bar in any other jurisdiction for four months. Notably, the HC also clarified that those who wish to be part-called to the Singapore Bar in the future should disclose any prior misconduct that may affect their suitability to practice at the first opportunity in their part-call affidavits. The failure to do so would be taken into account by the courts in assessing their suitability to be admitted.

In Singapore, those who wish to be admitted to the Bar must demonstrate proper character befitting that of an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. What, then, happens if an applicant has a prior record of misconduct? This issue arose in Re Tay Jie Qi and another matter [2023] SGHC 59, where the High Court ("HC") had to consider whether the two applicants were suitable for admission to the Bar. One applicant had committed plagiarism while in law school. The other applicant had, also while in law school, committed shoplifting; separately, a slab of illegal substance was found in her sister’s bag while they were out clubbing. The HC noted that their wrongdoing had occurred some time ago. The HC further observed that both applicants had voluntarily disclosed their misconduct despite that information not being in the public domain; were not involved in any other type of unsatisfactory conduct in the intervening years; and demonstrated repentance and remorse for their misconduct. Their willingness to face up to their mistakes and to deal "candidly and forthrightly" with the relevant stakeholders was “heartening”. The HC also emphasised that the purpose of a deferment in Bar admission applications is not punitive, but a rehabilitative one. As such, the HC allowed both their applications for admission to the Bar and welcomed them to the profession.

The offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”) is one that typically attracts the death penalty. However, under section 33B(1)(b) of the MDA the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment in lieu of the death penalty if the offender can prove that (1) he was merely a courier and (2) he was suffering from an abnormality of mind substantially impairing his mental responsibility for the offence. In Roszaidi Bin Osman v PP, the Court of Appeal considered whether the accused’s mental responsibility for a drug trafficking offence had been substantially impaired by his major depressive disorder (“MDD”) and substance use disorder (“SUD”). In a rare 3-2 split decision, a majority of the court held that the accused's mental responsibility had been so substantially impaired. The majority found that his MDD and SUD had operated together in a synergistic manner, exacerbating his overall mental abnormality. The majority also noted that in drug trafficking offences, the court must consider whether the accused’s decision to commit the offence was itself due to his decision-making faculties being substantially impaired, instead of focussing solely on the execution of the offence.

“Lawyers are called to be ministers in the temple of justice.” So what happens when aspiring lawyers cheat during the Bar exams? In Re Tay Quan Li Leon and Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters, the Singapore High Court ("HC") allowed five candidates who had cheated during the Bar exams to withdraw their applications for admission to the Bar, subject to certain terms and conditions, such as the exclusion of each candidate’s ability to bring a fresh application for Bar admission for a suitable minimum period of time. In so holding, the HC noted that the primary concern of the court in such cases is not to punish such candidates, but to ensure that they grow to become suitable for admission to the Bar. The HC also laid down a framework to aid future courts in determining the most appropriate course of action to be taken against such candidates.