Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society: Judicial Review, Disciplinary Proceedings & Private Entrapment
Wong Keng Leong Rayney applied for judicial review against rulings made by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society of Singapore. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that it was premature as the Disciplinary Committee had not yet made a final determination. The court also addressed issues of private entrapment and admissibility of evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for judicial review of disciplinary proceedings. The court held the application was premature and dismissed it.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Application dismissed | Won | Michael Hwang SC of Law Society of Singapore |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Hwang SC | Law Society of Singapore |
| N Sreenivasan | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Collin Choo | Straits Law Practice LLC |
4. Facts
- A complaint was lodged against the applicant, alleging he agreed to grant a referral fee.
- A law firm employed a private investigator to investigate whether competing law firms were offering referral fees.
- The private investigator devised a plan where an investigator would pose as an estate agent.
- The investigator contacted the applicant, posing as an estate agent, to arrange a meeting.
- Meetings between the applicant and the investigator were secretly recorded.
- The Law Society initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant based on the complaint and recorded conversations.
- The Disciplinary Committee refused to exclude the investigator's evidence and called the applicant to enter his defence.
5. Formal Citations
- Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore, OS 511/2006, [2006] SGHC 179
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lee was instructed by Tan to carry out his plan. | |
| Lee contacted the applicant to arrange for a meeting, which was eventually held. | |
| Meeting held at the applicant’s office. | |
| Disciplinary Committee report dated. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Prematurity of Application for Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the application for judicial review was premature.
- Category: Procedural
- Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Private Entrapment
- Outcome: The court held that the Disciplinary Committee did not err in admitting the evidence obtained by private entrapment.
- Category: Substantive
- Scope of Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court clarified the distinction between judicial review and appeals, emphasizing that judicial review is limited to examining the legality of a decision, not its substantive merits.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing order removing the Disciplinary Committee proceedings to the High Court
- Quashing order apropos the determinations by the Disciplinary Committee
- Order prohibiting the Disciplinary Committee from continuing to hear and investigate the matter
- Mandatory order directing that the Disciplinary Committee subpoena a witness
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Singh Kalpanath | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited to establish that proceedings before a Disciplinary Committee are susceptible to judicial review. |
| Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited to establish that proceedings before a Disciplinary Committee are susceptible to judicial review. |
| Hau Tua Tau v PP | Unknown | Yes | Hau Tua Tau v PP [1980–1981] SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Law Society has established a prima facie case against the applicant that now requires the applicant to enter his defence. |
| Regina v Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd, ex parte Mordens Ltd | Unknown | Yes | Regina v Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd, ex parte Mordens Ltd (1991) 3 Admin LR 254 | England | Cited for the principle that the court will only grant judicial review of a decision taken during the course of a hearing in the most exceptional circumstances. |
| Regina v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex parte Merrill | English Court of Appeal | Yes | Regina v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex parte Merrill [1989] 1 WLR 1077 | England | Cited for the normative rule that an aggrieved party should await the final outcome of a disciplinary hearing prior to seeking judicial review. |
| Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea | Unknown | Yes | Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (1987) 19 HLR 161 | England | Cited to support the proposition that judicial review may be granted if a decision is made on entire areas of evidence affecting the conduct and utility of the inferior proceedings, but distinguished. |
| Regina v Horseferry Road Justices, ex parte Independent Broadcasting Authority | Unknown | Yes | Regina v Horseferry Road Justices, ex parte Independent Broadcasting Authority [1987] 1 QB 54 | England | Cited for the principle that a clear and important question of law has arisen as a consequence of the DC’s decision to admit Lee’s evidence, but distinguished. |
| Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation | Unknown | Yes | Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation (1994) 6 Admin LR 714 | England | Cited for the principle that it is important that the reach of the powers of the Commission should be established, and where there exists all along a clean argument as to whether in law the Commission are entitled to entertain a complaint, it will not generally be contrary to the public interest that its merits be determined at an early stage, but distinguished. |
| Regina v Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman, ex parte The Burns-Anderson Independent Network plc | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | Regina v Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman, ex parte The Burns-Anderson Independent Network plc (21 January 1997) (Court of Appeal (Civil Division), UK) | England | Cited for the principle that the legal cleanness or clarity of a challenge to jurisdiction or its likely consequences should not normally by itself constitute a reason for depriving a tribunal in the first instance of the right to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter brought before it. |
| R v Commissioners for the Special Purposes of Income Tax Acts, ex parte Stipplechoice | Unknown | Yes | R v Commissioners for the Special Purposes of Income Tax Acts, ex parte Stipplechoice [1985] 2 All ER 465 | England | Cited to show a situation in which there was no procedure for appealing against a grant of leave by an income tax commissioner to issue an assessment out of time, even though one could appeal against the assessment itself, but distinguished. |
| Regina v Tickell, ex parte London Borough of Greenwich | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | Regina v Tickell, ex parte London Borough of Greenwich (12 December 1986) (Court of Appeal (Civil Division), UK) | England | Cited for the principle that it was desirable to decide this then and there so as to avoid any waste of time and money in continuing the proceedings should the inquiry be challenged and invalidated subsequently, but distinguished. |
| Amran bin Eusuff v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | Amran bin Eusuff v PP [2002] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that entrapment is not recognised as a defence to a prosecution. |
| Cheng Swee Tiang v PP | Unknown | Yes | Cheng Swee Tiang v PP [1964] MLJ 291 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that while evidence unlawfully obtained is admissible if relevant, there is a judicial discretion to disallow such evidence, if its reception would operate unfairly against an accused. |
| Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v The Queen [1955] AC 197 | England | Cited as the then-leading English decision of the principle recognising that it may, in some limited circumstances, be appropriate to exclude evidence that is unlawfully obtained. |
| Regina v Sang | House of Lords | Yes | Regina v Sang [1980] AC 402 | England | Cited for the principle that entrapment did not provide a substantive defence to a prosecution and that the discretion to exclude evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained was severely curtailed. |
| Ajmer Singh v PP | High Court | Yes | Ajmer Singh v PP [1986] SLR 454 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has the discretion to exclude evidence obtained in circumstances that were tantamount to or analogous to involuntary and self-incriminating confessions, as was held in Sang. |
| How Poh Sun v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | How Poh Sun v PP [1991] SLR 220 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defences of agent provocateur and entrapment do not exist in English law would also reflect the position in Singapore. |
| SM Summit Holdings Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | SM Summit Holdings Ltd v PP [1997] 3 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Sang is not of universal application in all cases of illegally obtained evidence and that there is a distinction between the case where police conduct has merely induced the accused person to commit the offence which he has committed and the case where the illegal police conduct itself constitutes an essential ingredient of the charged offence. |
| Regina v Looseley; Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2000) | House of Lords | Yes | Regina v Looseley; Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2000) [2001] 1 WLR 2060 | England | Cited for the principle that proceedings could be stayed or evidence excluded on the ground that evidence was obtained by entrapment, but not binding in Singapore. |
| Ong Chin Keat Jeffrey v PP | Unknown | Yes | Ong Chin Keat Jeffrey v PP [2004] 4 SLR 483 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Singapore law does not recognise a substantive defence of entrapment. |
| Chia Shih Ching James v Law Society of Singapore | Unknown | Yes | Chia Shih Ching James v Law Society of Singapore [9184–1985] SLR 53 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Law Society is statutorily compelled to investigate the complaint against the applicant. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Lim Cheong Peng | High Court | Yes | Law Society of Singapore v Lim Cheong Peng [2006] SGHC 145 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Three Judges recently acquitted an advocate and solicitor appearing before it on the basis that the Disciplinary Committee in that case had erred in the inferences it drew from the primary facts. |
| IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 | England | Cited for the standard of review that the courts apply in applications for leave to seek judicial review. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts [1996] 1 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of review that the courts apply in applications for leave to seek judicial review. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR 644 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of review that the courts apply in applications for leave to seek judicial review. |
| AG v Ng Hock Guan | Unknown | Yes | AG v Ng Hock Guan [2004] 3 SLR 253 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is a clear distinction between the powers that a superior court exercises in judicial reviews and appeals. |
| Public Trustee v By Products Traders Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | Public Trustee v By Products Traders Pte Ltd [2005] 3 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the observations that a solicitor is an officer of the court charged with the unique responsibility of upholding the legal system and the quality of justice. |
| Lau Liat Meng v Disciplinary Committee | Privy Council | Yes | Lau Liat Meng v Disciplinary Committee [1965–1968] SLR 8 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of the Three Judges was certainly entitled to act upon the findings of the Disciplinary Committee, it continued to retain control of the disciplinary process and had a discretion to hold a rehearing in a proper case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 83(2)(e) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Section 83(2)(d) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 87(2) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c 60) | England |
| Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42) | England |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Disciplinary Committee
- Private entrapment
- Admissibility of evidence
- Prematurity
- Referral fee
- Legal Profession Act
- Illegally obtained evidence
- Abuse of process
- Judicial integrity
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Entrapment
- Legal Profession Act
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Legal Profession
- Evidence Law