Iskandar v Law Society: Appeal on Disciplinary Proceedings for Defense Team in Double Murder Case

Iskandar bin Rahmat appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the Law Society of Singapore's dismissal of his complaint against his defense team during his High Court trial for double murder. The complaint alleged professional misconduct. The High Court dismissed Iskandar's application for review, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's decision, finding no prima facie case of misconduct by the defense team.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the Law Society's dismissal of a complaint against the defense team in Iskandar's double murder trial. The court affirmed the dismissal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Iskandar bin RahmatAppellant, ApplicantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Law Society of SingaporeRespondentStatutory BoardAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Quentin LohJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ravi s/o MadasamyK K Cheng Law LLC
P PadmanKSCGP Juris LLP

4. Facts

  1. Iskandar was convicted of double murder and sentenced to death.
  2. Iskandar filed a complaint against his defense team, alleging professional misconduct.
  3. The Law Society dismissed Iskandar's complaint.
  4. Iskandar sought a review of the Law Society's determination in the High Court.
  5. The High Court dismissed Iskandar's application.
  6. Iskandar appealed the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal.
  7. The Court of Appeal dismissed Iskandar's appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore, Civil Appeal No 9 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 107

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Iskandar bin Rahmat employed by the Singapore Police Force.
Iskandar bin Rahmat was in financial difficulties.
Iskandar bin Rahmat met Mr Tan Boon Sin near the location of the safe deposit box.
Pre-trial conference held.
Trial began.
Iskandar bin Rahmat's appeal against his convictions was dismissed.
Iskandar bin Rahmat lodged his first complaint against his Defence Team.
Inquiry Committee appointed to look into the Complaint.
Inquiry Committee issued its report.
Council dismissed the Complaint.
Iskandar bin Rahmat filed an application in the High Court seeking a review of the Council’s determination.
High Court dismissed the application.
Parties' submissions heard.
Appeal dismissed and Judge’s decision affirmed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Professional Misconduct
    • Outcome: The court found no prima facie case of professional misconduct.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found no evidence of negligence that rose to the level of professional misconduct.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Acting Without Authority
    • Outcome: The court found no evidence that the Defence Team acted beyond the scope of their authority.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Review of the Council’s determination
  2. Order directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Misconduct
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Iskandar bin RahmatHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 310SingaporeDetails the Appellant's conviction on two counts of murder and the mandatory death penalty imposed.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 505SingaporeDetails the dismissal of the Appellant's appeal against his convictions.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 40SingaporeDetails the dismissal of the Appellant's application seeking a review of the Council’s determination.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 874SingaporeDetermined that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the High Court's decision in disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Profession Act.
Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng and othersCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 556SingaporeCited for the proposition that the Inquiry Committee may decline to refer to the Disciplinary Tribunal any complaint that, even if taken at face value, would not raise sufficiently grave concerns as to warrant formal investigation.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 837SingaporeCited for the role of the Inquiry Committee being inquisitorial and informal.
Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 485SingaporeCited for the role of the Inquiry Committee is merely to investigate the complaint and to consider whether or not there is a prima facie case for a formal investigation.
Wong Juan Swee v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 429SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should be slow to disturb or interfere with the findings of fact by the Inquiry Committee unless supporting evidence was lacking or there was some misunderstanding of the evidence or there are other exceptional circumstances justifying the court to do so.
Derry v PeekHouse of LordsYes[1889] 14 App Cas 337England and WalesCited for the test applied to prove fraud.
Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matterCourt of Three JudgesYes[2017] 4 SLR 1369SingaporeCited for the test applied to prove fraud.
Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of Three JudgesYes[2010] 4 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the test applied to prove fraud.
Re Lim Kiap Khee; Law Society of Singapore v Lim Kiap KheeCourt of Three JudgesYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 398SingaporeCited for the principle that deceit or an intention to deceive would not be necessary for a finding of grossly improper conduct.
Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter LatimerCourt of Three JudgesYes[2019] 4 SLR 1427SingaporeCited for the inquiry of whether the conduct is dishonourable to the solicitor concerned as a man and dishonourable to his profession.
Re Marshall David; Law Society of Singapore v Marshall David SaulCourt of Three JudgesYes[1971–1973] SLR(R) 554SingaporeCited for the inquiry of whether the conduct is dishonourable to the solicitor concerned as a man and dishonourable to his profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee SingCourt of Three JudgesYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 466SingaporeCited for the principle that an example of grossly improper conduct is where a solicitor prefers his own interests to that of his client.
Law Society of Singapore v Khushvinder Singh ChopraCourt of Three JudgesYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 490SingaporeCited for the principle that a lawyer had precipitated, without any justifiable excuse, a conflict of interest between the interest of the vendors, his clients, and his own interest, as the property’s intended purchaser.
Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin YeeCourt of Three JudgesYes[2018] 5 SLR 1261SingaporeCited for the principle that by posing questions in cross-examination of a victim of alleged molest that were indecent, scandalous and calculated to insult or annoy, the respondent solicitor’s conduct was disgraceful and a clear abuse of the privileges of cross-examination that are entrusted to an advocate.
Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani BishamCourt of Three JudgesYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 231SingaporeCited for the principle that misconduct under the LPA is a broader catch-all provision where the conduct is deemed unacceptable but does not fall within any of the other enumerated grounds.
Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May SelenaHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 5SingaporeCited for the principle that where a solicitor is found liable for misconduct under s 83(2)(b) of the LPA, liability under s 83(2)(h) usually also follows on the basis of the logic that the greater encompasses the lesser.
In re G. Mayor CookeQueen's Bench DivisionYes(1889) 5 TLR 407England and WalesCited for the principle that in order that the Court should exercise its penal jurisdiction over a solicitor it was not sufficient to show that his conduct had been such as would support an action for negligence or want of skill.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan See Leh JonathanCourt of Three JudgesYes[2020] 5 SLR 418SingaporeCited for the principle that the respondent’s misconduct is not a simple case of negligence, but a blatant disregard of the professional and ethical standards that are meant to preserve the dignity of the legal profession and to protect the public.
Law Society of Singapore v Quan Chee Seng MichaelHigh CourtYes[2003] SGHC 140SingaporeCited for the observations that simple negligence or want of skill would not be sufficient to amount to due cause.
In re A SolicitorUnknownYes[1936] 1 DLR 368CanadaEven gross negligence were held not to amount to professional misconduct.
Re MUnknownYes[1930] NZLR 285New ZealandIt was said that the failure of the solicitor to have his trust accounts audited amounts to professional misconduct.
In re A SolicitorUnknownYes[1972] 2 All ER 811England and WalesWhere a solicitor was in breach of the accounts rules, Lord Denning said that negligence in a solicitor may amount to professional misconduct if it is inexcusable and is such as to be regarded as deplorable by his fellows in the profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May SelenaCourt of Three JudgesYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 320SingaporeIt is settled law that failure to maintain the requisite financial and/or accounting records inevitably results in a finding of professional misconduct.
Law Society of Singapore v K Jayakumar NaiduCourt of Three JudgesYes[2012] 4 SLR 1232SingaporeThe Court consistently referred to a standard of what a reasonably competent lawyer would have done in the circumstances as the central inquiry in the case.
Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng ChristopherCourt of Three JudgesYes[2014] 4 SLR 877SingaporeThe entire object of the SA Rules for solicitors is to ensure that clients’ money is properly recorded and accounted for.
In re Weare, a Solicitor; In re The Solicitors Act, 1888Queen's Bench DivisionYes[1893] 2 QB 439England and WalesCited for the standard applied here is therefore less strict as compared to the other two grounds, and it only need be shown that a solicitor is guilty of such conduct as would render him unfit to remain as a member of an honourable profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay KhiangHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 477SingaporeLegal practitioners are a client’s agent.
Ridehalgh v HorsefieldCourt of AppealYes[1994] Ch 205England and WalesAny judge who is invited to make or contemplates making an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an advocate in court, like a commander in battle, often has to make decisions quickly and under pressure, in the fog of war and ignorant of developments on the other side of the hill.
Arthur J S Hall & Co (a firm) v SimonsHouse of LordsYes[2002] 1 AC 615England and WalesIt will not be easy to establish negligence against a barrister. The courts can be trusted to differentiate between errors of judgment and true negligence.
Zhou Tong and others v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 534SingaporeCited for the principle that one is not to sit as judge of a client’s case, where an argument is simply untenable in the light of the evidence a lawyer would be in breach of duty in insisting on running the argument, nevertheless.
Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Han Cheng) v Goh JessilineHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 455SingaporeCited for the principle that one is not to sit as judge of a client’s case, where an argument is simply untenable in the light of the evidence a lawyer would be in breach of duty in insisting on running the argument, nevertheless.
Re Cashin HowardHigh CourtYes[1989] 2 SLR(R) 82SingaporeThis standard of conduct that is inexcusable and is such as to be regarded as deplorable by the fellows in the profession.
Lee Wei Ling and another v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 87SingaporeA further point is that on the issue of negligence, the standard of professionalism expected in the particular circumstances, in the light of the specific queries posed and then repeated, must also be established by a [Disciplinary Tribunal].

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(a)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession Act s 96Singapore
Legal Profession Act s 83(2)Singapore
Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 2013 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Professional misconduct
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Inquiry Committee
  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Defense Team
  • Negligence
  • Acting without authority

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings95
Legal Profession Act90
Professional Misconduct80
Criminal Law50
Evidence Law30

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Civil Procedure