Law Society v Shanmugam Manohar: Admissibility of Police Statements in Disciplinary Proceedings
The Law Society of Singapore applied for sanctions against Shanmugam Manohar, an advocate and solicitor, for professional misconduct related to referral fees and client communication. The Court of Three Judges of the Republic of Singapore considered the admissibility of police statements recorded during criminal investigations in disciplinary proceedings. The court set aside the disciplinary tribunal's determination and directed the Law Society to apply for the appointment of a new disciplinary tribunal to rehear the matter.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Three Judges of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Determination of the disciplinary tribunal set aside; applicant directed to apply for the appointment of a new disciplinary tribunal to hear and investigate the complaint.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Law Society sought sanctions against Shanmugam Manohar for professional misconduct. The court addressed the admissibility of police statements in disciplinary proceedings and ordered a fresh hearing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Determination of the disciplinary tribunal set aside | Other | |
| Shanmugam Manohar | Respondent | Individual | Fresh hearing ordered | Remanded |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The respondent, Shanmugam Manohar, is an advocate and solicitor with over 27 years of standing.
- The Law Society brought four main charges against the respondent related to referral fees and client communication.
- The charges arose from investigations into a motor insurance fraud scheme involving Ng Kin Kok.
- Ng Kin Kok referred clients to the respondent in exchange for referral fees.
- The respondent allegedly failed to communicate directly with referred clients at the appropriate stages.
- Key evidence against the respondent comprised police statements recorded from him and others.
- The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found all charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on the statements.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam Manohar, Originating Summons No 7 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 201
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent admitted to the Bar | |
| Ng Kin Kok's statement recorded by CAD | |
| Ng Kin Kok convicted and sentenced | |
| AGC directed CAD to investigate Ng's claim | |
| Ng Kin Kok's further statement recorded | |
| Respondent's statement recorded | |
| K Krishnamoorthy's statement recorded | |
| Attorney-General made a complaint concerning the respondent’s conduct to the applicant | |
| Respondent filed HC/OS 1030/2019 | |
| Respondent filed HC/OS 1206/2019 | |
| OS 1030/2019 dismissed by High Court Judge | |
| OS 1206/2019 dismissed by High Court Judge | |
| DT Hearing took place | |
| DT Hearing took place | |
| DT Decision dated | |
| Oral arguments heard | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Police Statements
- Outcome: The court held that Section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs the admissibility of police statements in all proceedings, including disciplinary proceedings, subject to certain exceptions.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Application of the Evidence Act in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 3 SLR 600
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 377
- Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that the respondent was barred by issue estoppel from raising the Ultra Vires Argument and Confidentiality Argument.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of res judicata
- Fresh evidence exception
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 157
- [2021] SGCA 44
- [2015] 5 SLR 1104
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court did not make a final determination on whether professional misconduct occurred, but ordered a fresh hearing to properly investigate the complaint.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Payment of referral fees
- Failure to communicate directly with clients
8. Remedies Sought
- Sanction under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Professional Responsibility
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shanmugam Manohar v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 600 | Singapore | Addressed the issues of improper recording of statements and confidentiality, relevant to the admissibility of contested statements. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that all relevant evidence is admissible unless its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that all relevant evidence is admissible unless its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam Manohar | Disciplinary Tribunal | Yes | [2020] SGDT 9 | Singapore | The judgment under appeal, detailing the DT's findings on the charges and the admissibility of evidence. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1369 | Singapore | Cited to support the application of the Evidence Act to disciplinary proceedings. |
| Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Strata Title Plan No 301 | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 157 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of issue estoppel. |
| Beh Chew Boo v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 44 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the doctrine of issue estoppel may be excluded in certain special circumstances where new, relevant evidence subsequently becomes available. |
| The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1104 | Singapore | Cited for the ambit of the exception to issue estoppel, albeit only in the context of civil cases. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 5 | Singapore | Cited to support that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the process of purposive statutory interpretation. |
| Chua Boon Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited to support that provisions of the EA apply to all proceedings generally pursuant to s 2(1) of the EA. |
| Yohannan v R | High Court | Yes | [1963] MLJ 57 | Malaysia | Cited for the object of s 122 of the 1985 ed CPC was to protect the accused against the risk of untruthful witnesses. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sng Siew Ngoh | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 143 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of section 122 is not so much to regulate police behaviour but to ensure that reliable evidence is given. |
| Khatri v State of Bihar | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1981 SC 1068 | India | Discusses the application of s 162 of the Indian CPC, which is analogous to s 259 of the Singapore CPC. |
| Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 WLR 25 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that statements recorded in the course of police investigations are confidential, but disclosure may be permitted where it is in the public interest. |
| Riedel-de Haen AG v Liew Keng Pang | High Court | Yes | [1989] 1 SLR(R) 417 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the privilege against self-incrimination may not apply to answers that might expose the witness to civil liability or disciplinary sanction. |
| Guccio Gucci SpA v Sukhdav Singh and other suits | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 823 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the privilege against self-incrimination may not apply to answers that might expose the witness to civil liability or disciplinary sanction. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 120 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may only exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value. |
| ANB v ANC and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 522 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court would leave for a future occasion the question of whether this exclusionary discretion exists in the context of civil proceedings and whether the same balancing test (where the prejudicial effect of the evidence is weighed against its probative value) ought to apply. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 858 | Singapore | Cited for an analogous situation where the High Court set aside the determination of a disciplinary tribunal due to the defective nature of the charges against the solicitor in question. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable principles in deciding whether a retrial or an acquittal should be ordered upon the quashing of a criminal conviction. |
| Dennis Reid v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1980] AC 343 | United Kingdom | Cited for the applicable principles in deciding whether a retrial or an acquittal should be ordered upon the quashing of a criminal conviction. |
| Beh Chai Hock v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fairness of the trial below had been compromised by the conduct of [the trial by] the trial judge. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules (2010 Rev Ed) r 23(1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(e) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(h) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2015) s 83(2)(e) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2015) s 83(2)(b)(i) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2015) s 83(2)(h) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 259 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 98(8)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 179 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Referral Fees
- Police Statements
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Issue Estoppel
- Professional Misconduct
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Evidence Act
- Ultra Vires
- Confidentiality
- Warrant to Act
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Police Statements
- Admissibility
- Issue Estoppel
- Referral Fees
- Professional Misconduct
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Disciplinary Proceedings | 90 |
| Res Judicata | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
| Criminal Procedure | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Evidence Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Professional Discipline