Disciplinary Tribunal Reports
Pursuant to section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act, the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the same.
This summary is published pursuant to the requirement of section 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.
In the Matter of CNH (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor
These proceedings arose out of information referred by the Attorney-General to the Law Society on the Respondent’s conduct.
The Respondent pleaded guilty to, and was duly convicted of the following:
- Section 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (PC) for intending to insult the modesty of a 23-year-old woman (Victim), and intruding upon her privacy, by using his handphone to take photographs of her chest and brassiere without her consent; and
- Section 509 of the PC for intending to insult the modesty of the Victim, and intruding upon her privacy, by using his handphone to take photographs of her panties without her consent.
The Respondent had also consented to the following to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing:
- Section 509 of the PC for intending to insult the modesty of the Victim, and intruding upon her privacy, by using his handphone to take photographs of her panties without her consent; and
- Section 354(1) of the PC for using criminal force on the Victim, by pressing his thigh against her upper arm, knowing it is likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty.
The Respondent was sentenced to a total of four weeks’ imprisonment by the State Courts.
The Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Ms Kuah Boon Theng SC and Mr Philip Ling as DT member.
Two charges (Charges) were preferred against the Respondent:
1st Charge
For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (LPA) in that the Respondent had intentionally used his handphone to take photographs of the chest and brasserie of the Victim, who was his colleague in the law firm, without her consent.
2nd Charge
For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA in that the Respondent had intentionally used his handphone to take photographs of the panties of the Victim, who was his colleague in the law firm, without her consent, and pressed his thigh against her upper arm, knowing it is likely that he would outrage her modesty.
Findings and Determination of the DT
The Respondent was unrepresented, and failed to attend the DT Hearing, despite due notice being given to him. The DT proceeded to make a determination in the Respondent’s absence pursuant to Rule 16 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules (Rules).
The DT noted that the Charges preferred against the Respondent were premised on his conduct culminating in him being charged and convicted of the criminal offences in the State Courts. As the Respondent pleaded guilty to, and has been convicted of his criminal charges, it was therefore taken that he had admitted to all the facts underlying and forming the basis of the criminal charges.
With reference to section 45A of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) as well as Rule 23 of the Rules, the DT was of the view that it was entitled to, and accepted as conclusive, the facts underlying and forming the basis of the criminal charges.
The DT found that the Respondent’s said conduct, taken as a whole, fell below the required standards of integrity and probity, and had brought grave dishonour to the profession.
The DT found that the Charges were made out, and was of the view that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the LPA, and recommended for the matter to be referred to the Court of Three Judges (C3J).
Council accepted the findings and recommendations of the DT. The C3J subsequently struck the Respondent off the Roll.*
*The decision of the C3J can be found in Law Society of Singapore v CNH [2022] SGHC 114.
