Law Society v Wong Sin Yee: Disciplinary Proceedings for Improper Cross-Examination

The Law Society of Singapore applied to the Court of Three Judges for disciplinary action against Wong Sin Yee, an advocate and solicitor, for improper conduct during the cross-examination of a victim in a criminal trial. The Disciplinary Tribunal found Wong guilty of grossly improper conduct, misconduct unbefitting an advocate, and breaching professional conduct rules. The Court of Three Judges agreed with the Disciplinary Tribunal, suspended Wong for five years commencing 16 May 2018, and ordered him to pay costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the Law Society.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Three Judges of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Respondent suspended for five years.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Law Society brought disciplinary proceedings against Wong Sin Yee for improper cross-examination of a victim. The court suspended Wong for five years.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardJudgment for ApplicantWon
WONG SIN YEERespondentIndividualSuspensionLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Doreen Chia Ming YeeRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Chandra Mohan RethnamRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Suang WijayaEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Eugene ThuraisingamEugene Thuraisingam LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Respondent, acting as counsel, cross-examined a victim in an outrage of modesty trial.
  2. The Respondent asked the victim if she thought she was a pretty girl and made comments about her attractiveness.
  3. The Respondent asked the victim to stand up so he could see how attractive she was.
  4. The Respondent made references to the victim's breast size in an exchange with the District Judge.
  5. The District Judge had to tell the Respondent to stop his line of questioning three times.
  6. The Attorney-General's Chambers lodged a complaint against the Respondent with the Law Society.
  7. The Disciplinary Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of improper conduct.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee, Originating Summons No 8 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 196

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Wong Sin Yee convicted of insulting the modesty of a woman and voluntarily causing hurt.
Wong Sin Yee convicted of disobeying an order duly promulgated by a public servant.
Wong Sin Yee admitted to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore.
Road-bullying incident involving Wong Sin Yee.
Wong Sin Yee convicted on two charges related to the road-bullying incident.
Wong Sin Yee suspended from practice for two years.
Wong Sin Yee detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.
Wong Sin Yee released from detention and resumed legal practice.
Wong Sin Yee cross-examined the victim in the outrage of modesty trial.
Wong Sin Yee made a vulgar remark during cross-examination of a witness in another criminal case.
Wong Sin Yee uttered a swear word in response to a witness's answer in another criminal case.
Oral closing submissions in the outrage of modesty trial.
District Judge released written grounds of decision criticizing Wong Sin Yee's cross-examination.
Attorney-General's Chambers lodged a complaint against Wong Sin Yee with the Law Society.
Disciplinary Tribunal constituted to investigate the complaint against Wong Sin Yee.
Hearing before the Disciplinary Tribunal took place.
Disciplinary Tribunal issued its decision, finding all three charges against Wong Sin Yee proved.
Court heard the parties and was satisfied that the disciplinary charges against the Respondent had been made out.
Wong Sin Yee's suspension commenced.
Detailed reasons for the court's decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Improper Conduct During Cross-Examination
    • Outcome: The court found that the Respondent's cross-examination of the victim amounted to grossly improper conduct, misconduct unbefitting of an advocate, and a breach of professional conduct rules.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scandalous questions
      • Insulting questions
      • Abuse of power
      • Victim blaming

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disciplinary Action
  2. Suspension
  3. Striking Off

9. Cause of Actions

  • Grossly Improper Conduct
  • Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate
  • Breach of Professional Conduct Rules

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Criminal Law

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Xu JiadongSingapore Magistrate's CourtYes[2016] SGMC 38SingaporeCited for the District Judge's criticism of the Respondent's insulting questions during cross-examination.
Public Prosecutor v Ong Jack HongSingapore High CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 166SingaporeCited for the court's direction to be mindful of the appropriateness and relevance of questions and submissions, especially in cases of sexual offences.
Ng Jun Xian v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 933SingaporeCited for highlighting the inappropriateness of victim-blaming.
Re Han Ngiap JuanSingapore High CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 135SingaporeCited for the definition of 'grossly improper conduct' as conduct that is dishonourable to the lawyer as a man or in his profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee SingSingapore High CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 466SingaporeCited for the explanation of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA as a 'catch-all provision' for unacceptable conduct.
Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of AccountantsSingapore High CourtYes[1989] 2 SLR(R) 633SingaporeCited for the test of 'unbefitting conduct' as whether reasonable people would say the solicitor should not have done it.
Kwang Boon Keong v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 211SingaporeCited for the reminder that cross-examination should be conducted with restraint and courtesy.
Mechanical & General Inventions Co v AustinHouse of LordsYesMechanical & General Inventions Co v Austin (1935) AC 346United KingdomCited for the observations on the use of cross-examination with discretion and due regard to the witness.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi MadasamySingapore High CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 300SingaporeCited as a case involving discourtesy to the court, where the advocate was suspended for one year.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamySingapore Disciplinary TribunalYes[2012] SGDT 12SingaporeCited as a case involving the same advocate, who was fined for misconduct unbefitting an advocate due to exceptional circumstances.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o MadasamySingapore High CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 1141SingaporeCited for the considerations in determining the appropriate sanction in disciplinary cases.
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelSingapore High CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 266SingaporeCited for the principle that a solicitor may be struck off the roll if he lacks the necessary qualities of character and trustworthiness.
Law Society of Singapore v Ismail bin AtanSingapore High CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 746SingaporeCited as a case where the solicitor was guilty of serious sexual misconduct.
Wong Sin Yee v PPSingapore High CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 63SingaporeCited for Yong Pung How CJ's comments on the Respondent's abusive and violent behavior in the road-bullying incident.
Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin YeeSingapore High CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 209SingaporeCited for the court's decision to suspend the Respondent from practice for two years due to his defective character.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Cross-examination
  • Outrage of modesty
  • Disciplinary tribunal
  • Improper conduct
  • Victim blaming
  • Professional ethics
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Conduct Rules
  • Scandalous questions
  • Insulting questions

15.2 Keywords

  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Improper cross-examination
  • Legal profession
  • Professional conduct
  • Singapore
  • Law Society
  • Suspension

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act95
Professional Conduct Rules92
Disciplinary Proceedings90
Professional Discipline88
Professional Ethics85
Professional Misconduct80
Solicitor's duties70

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Cross-Examination Ethics