Re Mohamad Shafee Khamis: Admission to the Bar, Sexual Offences, Public Trust

In the matter of Mohamad Shafee Khamis, the Chief Justice of Singapore considered an application for admission as an Advocate and Solicitor. The Attorney-General, Law Society of Singapore, and Singapore Institute of Legal Education objected due to the applicant's prior convictions for sexual offences. The applicant applied to withdraw his application, and the court granted leave to withdraw with a Minimum Exclusionary Period of two years, balancing the applicant's rehabilitation with the need to maintain public trust in the legal profession.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Applicant granted leave to withdraw application for admission with a Minimum Exclusionary Period of two years.

1.3 Case Type

Legal Profession

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for admission to the bar was withdrawn with a two-year exclusionary period due to prior sexual offences, balancing rehabilitation and public trust.

1.7 Decision Date

27 October 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Objection partially successful	Partial	Fu Qijing of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Hui Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sean Koh Yi Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Law Society of Singapore	Respondent	Statutory Board	Objection partially successful	Partial	Sanjiv Rajan of Allen & Gledhill LLP Prabu Devaraj of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Mohamad Shafee Khamis	Applicant	Individual	Leave to withdraw application granted with Minimum Exclusionary Period	Partial
Singapore Institute of Legal Education	Respondent	Statutory Board	Objection partially successful	Partial	Chong Soon Yong Avery of Avery Chong Law Practice

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Fu Qijing	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Hui Min	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sean Koh Yi Wei	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sanjiv Rajan	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Prabu Devaraj	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Chong Soon Yong Avery	Avery Chong Law Practice

4. Facts

The applicant had been convicted of sexual offences, including making obscene films and public nuisance.
The applicant pleaded guilty to four charges and had other charges taken into consideration.
The victims included a police officer, a teacher, and a 16-year-old student.
The applicant was sentenced to 10 weeks' imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.
The applicant had been diagnosed with psychiatric conditions, including Voyeuristic Disorder.
The applicant completed a Juris Doctor program and practice training after the offences.
The Attorney-General, Law Society, and SILE objected to the applicant's admission due to the criminal offences.

5. Formal Citations

Re Mohamad Shafee Khamis, Admission of Advocates and Solicitors No 336 of 2023(Summonses Nos 966 and 1072 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 274

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2018-04-16	Applicant resigned from school.
2018-04-15	Applicant apprehended for voyeuristic actions.
2018-07-30	Applicant's first consultation with Dr. Terence Leong.
2019-07-01	Applicant began Juris Doctor program at Singapore Management University.
2022-03-23	District Judge delivered oral judgment.
2022-04-19	Applicant began serving sentence.
2022-06-04	Applicant completed serving sentence.
2022-06-30	Applicant completed Juris Doctor program at Singapore Management University.
2023-01-03	Applicant began practice training with Vanilla Law LLC.
2023-05-16	Applicant filed application for admission as Advocate and Solicitor.
2023-07-03	Applicant completed practice training with Vanilla Law LLC.
2023-07-10	Applicant's certificate of diligence signed off.
2024-04-17	Applicant applied to withdraw application for admission.
2024-08-15	Hearing date for withdrawal application.
2024-10-28	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Fitness for Admission to the Bar
- Outcome: The court considered the applicant's past criminal offences and rehabilitation efforts in determining his fitness for admission, ultimately granting leave to withdraw the application with a Minimum Exclusionary Period.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Rehabilitation
  - Duty of Candour
  - Public Trust
- Related Cases:
  - [2023] 4 SLR 541
  - [2023] 5 SLR 1272
Duty of Candour
- Outcome: The court assessed whether the applicant had adequately disclosed his past offences and addressed any inconsistencies in his disclosures.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Disclosure of Prior Misconduct
  - Accuracy of Disclosures
- Related Cases:
  - [2024] 4 SLR 1324
Public Trust in the Legal Profession
- Outcome: The court considered whether admitting the applicant, given his past offences, would undermine public trust in the legal profession and the administration of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reputation of the Legal Profession
  - Integrity of the Administration of Justice
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 1 SLR 645
  - [2013] 4 SLR 1147

8. Remedies Sought

Admission as an Advocate and Solicitor

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Professional Responsibility
Regulatory Law

11. Industries

Legal Services
Education

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2023] 4 SLR 541	Singapore	Cited as guidance for judicial discretion in contested applications for admission to the profession, focusing on the applicant's character and rehabilitation.
Re Suria Shaik Aziz	High Court	Yes	[2023] 5 SLR 1272	Singapore	Cited as guidance for judicial discretion in contested applications for admission to the profession, focusing on the applicant's character and rehabilitation.
Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2024] SGCA 36	Singapore	Distinguished regarding self-representation in admission applications versus ad hoc admission applications for foreign counsel.
Re Gabriel Silas Tang Rafferty	High Court	Yes	[2024] 4 SLR 401	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the decision in a withdrawal application is a matter for the court to determine.
Attorney-General v Shahira Banu d/o Khaja Moinudeen	High Court	Yes	[2024] 4 SLR 1324	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the decision in a withdrawal application is a matter for the court to determine.
Re Lee Jun Ming Chester and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2023] 3 SLR 1443	Singapore	Referenced to highlight the severity of the applicant's offences compared to a case involving upskirt videos.
Re Tay Quan Li Leon	High Court	Yes	[2022] 5 SLR 896	Singapore	Cited regarding the reliability of psychiatric reports and the need for underlying evidence and explanation of the analytical process.
Law Society of Singapore v CNH	High Court	Yes	[2022] 4 SLR 482	Singapore	Cited for the principle that sexual offences entail a severe violation of the dignity and bodily integrity of the victim.
Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 645	Singapore	Cited regarding public confidence in the legal profession and the possibility of reinstatement for practitioners struck off for dishonesty.
Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1147	Singapore	Cited regarding the public interest in safeguarding against re-offending and maintaining confidence in the legal profession.
Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1018	Singapore	Cited regarding the public dimension to be considered, i.e., the reputation of the legal fraternity in the eyes of the public.
Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 641	Singapore	Cited regarding the focus on the applicant and the public interest in reinstatement applications.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR 704	Singapore	Cited regarding the nature of the transgression that resulted in disbarment.
Re Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh	High Court	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR 608	Singapore	Cited regarding offences striking at the heart of the administration of justice.
Nathan Edmund v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 719	Singapore	Cited regarding positive steps taken by an applicant to re-establish his or her suitability for legal practice.
Public Trustee and another v By Products Traders Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 449	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the duty of candour owed to the court is an indivisible, uncompromising and enduring duty.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011
Rules of Court 2021
Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2024

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act 1966	Singapore
Films Act	Singapore
Penal Code	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Admission to the Bar
Minimum Exclusionary Period
Duty of Candour
Public Trust
Rehabilitation
Voyeuristic Disorder
Sexual Offences
Protective Principle

15.2 Keywords

admission
advocate
solicitor
sexual offences
rehabilitation
public trust
legal profession
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Admission to the Bar	95
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	90
Civil Practice	60
Criminal Law	40
Voyeuristic Offences	30

16. Subjects

Legal Ethics
Criminal Justice
Professional Conduct