Law Society v Wong Sin Yee: Show Cause Action for Criminal Offence and Fitness for Legal Profession

The Law Society of Singapore applied to the High Court to make absolute a show cause order against Mr. Wong Sin Yee, an advocate and solicitor, following his conviction in the Subordinate Court for voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code. The High Court, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Lai Siu Chiu J, and Tay Yong Kwang J, found that Wong's actions implied a defect of character rendering him unfit for the profession and ordered a two-year suspension from practice. The Law Society also brought a second charge for causing alarm, but the DC deferred imposing the precise penalty on this charge until the conclusion of the present proceedings in relation to the assault charge.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Order absolute; two years’ suspension from practice imposed.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Law Society's application to make absolute a show cause order against Wong, an advocate and solicitor, following his conviction for voluntarily causing hurt. The court imposed a two-year suspension.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardOrder absoluteWon
WONG SIN YEERespondentIndividualSuspension from practiceLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeNo
Tay Yong KwangJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prakash MulaniM&A Law Corporation
C R Rajah SCTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. Wong was convicted of voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code.
  2. The incident involved Wong hitting Mok on the mouth with his handphone during an altercation.
  3. Wong was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on the second charge, which was enhanced to a term of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of $1,000 on the cross-appeal of the Public Prosecutor.
  4. The Law Society brought charges against Wong for his convictions, arguing they implied a defect of character.
  5. The Disciplinary Committee found that Wong's lack of self-restraint constituted a defect in character.
  6. Wong had a prior conviction for causing hurt in 1992.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee, OS 346/2003, [2003] SGHC 197

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Incident occurred involving Wong and Mok.
Wong was convicted in the Subordinate Courts.
High Court made the order absolute and imposed punishment.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Fitness to Practice
    • Outcome: The court found that Wong's conviction implied a defect of character rendering him unfit for the profession.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Defect of character
      • Misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 4 SLR 168
      • [1893] 2 QB 439
      • [2000] 4 SLR 88
      • [1994] 3 SLR 531

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order to show cause why Wong should not be dealt with under s 83(1) of the Act
  2. Suspension
  3. Striking off

9. Cause of Actions

  • Show cause action
  • Voluntarily causing hurt

10. Practice Areas

  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian RickHigh CourtYes[1999] 4 SLR 168SingaporeCited regarding the principle that an offence need not be committed in a professional capacity to imply a defect of character.
Re Weare, A SolicitorQueen's BenchYes[1893] 2 QB 439England and WalesCited regarding the principle that an offence need not be committed in a professional capacity to imply a defect of character.
Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein LawrenceHigh CourtYes[2000] 4 SLR 88SingaporeCited as an example of a case where theft of goods by a solicitor implied a defect of character.
Re Knight Glenn JeyasingamHigh CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR 531SingaporeCited regarding the principle that the offence must be of such a nature 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.
v Law SocietyN/AYes[1994] 2 All ER 486N/ACited regarding the principle that if a charge against a solicitor involves proven dishonesty, he will almost invariably be struck off the roll.
Law Society v Lau See-Jin JeffreyHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR 215SingaporeCited regarding the principle that if a charge against a solicitor involves proven dishonesty, he will almost invariably be struck off the roll.
Law Society of Singapore v Singam Dennis MahendranHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR 566SingaporeCited regarding the considerations for determining the appropriate penalty in disciplinary proceedings.
Re Mohamed Jeffry MuljeeHigh CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR 520SingaporeCited regarding the principle that it would be an aggravating factor if the misconduct were to have been committed in his professional capacity.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224)Singapore
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Amended Act (Cap 184, 1996 Edn)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Defect of character
  • Show cause order
  • Voluntarily causing hurt
  • Unfitness for profession
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Self-restraint

15.2 Keywords

  • Law Society
  • Wong Sin Yee
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Penal Code
  • Show cause
  • Suspension
  • Defect of character
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act90
Disciplinary Action80
Show cause action70
Criminal Law60
Criminal Procedure50
Evidence Law30

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Criminal Law
  • Regulatory Law