lss_dt_reports_version: 69

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
69 45 1 1134 In the Matter of Isaac Riko Chua (1st Respondent) and Wong Shoou-Huang Jonathan (2nd Respondent) (Collectively, Respondents), Advocates & Solicitors In the Matter of Isaac Riko Chua (1st Respondent) and Wong Shoou-Huang Jonathan (2nd Respondent) (Collectively, Respondents), Advocates & Solicitors These proceedings arose from information referred by the Supreme Court of Singapore touching on the Respondents’ conduct. The Respondents acted for the Accused (the Accused) in a criminal matter. They acted for the Accused both in proceedings at the State Courts, and subsequently in the Appeal at the High Court. The Accused had pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 10 charges. As part of their preparation of the Accused’s mitigation plea, the Respondents submitted a report dated 25 November 2020 (Psychiatric Report) by a psychiatrist (the Psychiatrist). In a letter dated 26 March 2021 (26 March Letter), the Respondents requested the Psychiatrist’s opinion on five specific issues which the 1st Respondent was informed would be of relevance to the sentencing court. The Psychiatrist issued a Clarificatory Report dated 6 April 2021 (the Clarificatory Report), which was relied on in the mitigation plea in the State Courts. Subsequently, the Accused appealed to the High Court against his sentence, where both the Psychiatric Report and Clarificatory Report were relied on. In written submissions prepared by the Respondents for the Accused for the Appeal, the 2nd Respondent’s name appeared first in the order of counsel for the Accused with the 1st Respondent. However, on 24 September 2021, only the 1st Respondent appeared as counsel for the Accused before the Honourable the Chief Justice in the Appeal. The 2nd Respondent appeared with the 1st Respondent at the further hearing of the Appeal on 1 December 2021. At the 24 September 2021 hearing, the Court found the Clarificatory Report to be difficult to follow, as the Court was unable to readily locate the questions posed to the Psychiatrist from the Clarificatory Report or the Record of Appeal. When this was raised to the 1st Respondent at the hearing, he mistakenly thought that the questions posed to the Psychiatrist were not set out in the Clarificatory Report. When the Court asked the 1st Respondent if he would be able to disclose the questions posed to the Psychiatrist, he failed to assist the Court by informing where those questions could be found within the Clarificatory Report. Instead, the 1st Respondent informed the Court that privilege was being asserted over the document with the specific questions that were posed to the Psychiatrist for the creation of the Clarificatory Report (i.e. the 26 March Letter). As a result, the Clarificatory Report was excluded in the Appeal. The 2nd Respondent was informed by the 1st Respondent of what transpired at the hearing of the Appeal. The 2nd Respondent did not take issue with the 1st Respondent’s election to exclude the Clarificatory Report as evidence in the Appeal. The Chief Justice empaneled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Kenneth Tan, SC and Mr Chan Hock Keng as DT member. One amended charge was preferred against the 1st Respondent: Amended Charge Against 1st Respondent For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honorable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (the Act), in that the 1st Respondent had, whilst acting for the Accused, submitted a clarificatory report dated 6 April 2021 to the High Court in HC/MA 9101/2021/01, and had failed to assist the Court by not being fully familiar with the Clarificatory Report, and thereby failed to assist in the administration of justice or act honourably in the interests of justice as he were duty bound to do to as he: Was not fully familiar with the contents of the Clarificatory Report; When queried by the Honourable the Chief Justice, the 1st Respondent failed to assist the Court by pointing out to where the questions could have been found – which were in the Clarificatory Report itself; and Instead, elected to assert privilege over the questions posed to the Psychiatrist in the creation of the Clarificatory Report, and then chose not to rely on the Clarificatory Report for the Appeal. One amended charge was preferred against the 2nd Respondent: Amended Charge Against 2nd Respondent For misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honorable profession under section 83(2)(h) of the Act, in that the 2nd Respondent had, whilst acting for the Accused, submitted a Clarificatory Report to the High Court in HC/MA 9101/2021/01, that the 2nd Respondent, together with the 1st Respondent an Advocate and Solicitor, who was the lead counsel before the Honourable the Chief Justice, and as counsel for the Accused, were not fully familiar with the Clarificatory Report and thereby failed to assist in the administration of justice or act honourably in the interests of justice as he were duty bound to do to. Findings and Determination of the DT, Council’s Sanctions The DT found that the 1st Respondent’s negligent decision to assert privilege over the questions posed to the Psychiatrist was comparatively more serious. The Clarificatory Report had been excluded from the evidence in the Appeal as a result of the 1st Respondent’s mistake. As the Clarificatory Report was submitted as evidence favourable to the Accused, the 1st Respondent’s decision could have had the effect of damaging the Accused’s case in the Appeal. The DT was of the view that the 1st Respondent should be sanctioned under section 93(1)(b) of the Act. The DT found that the 2nd Respondent should also bear responsibility for the negligent decision to assert privilege over the questions posed to the Psychiatrist. As the 2nd Respondent’s negligence could have prejudiced the Accused’s rights in the Appeal, the 2nd Respondent should be sanctioned under section 93(1)(b) of the Act. Pursuant to section 93(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, the DT determined that, while there was no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act, both Respondents should be reprimanded. Pursuant to parties’ agreement, the DT ordered that the Respondents be jointly and severally liable for the payment of costs of S$7,000.00 and disbursements to be fixed at S$200.00, to be paid to the Law Society. Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Law Society accepted and adopted the DT’s findings and recommendations, and reprimanded the Respondents. To access the full report, click here. https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Dec_24_Isaac_Riko_Chua_and_Wong_Shoou_Huang_Jonathan_full_DT_report.pdf 75. The DT thus order that the 1‘' and 2" Respondents are to be jointly and severally liable for the payment of costs of $7,000 and disbursements of $200 to be paid to the LSS, as agreed by the parties. Dated this 7th day of July 2023 bar Kenneth Tan SC President Molla. Chan Hock Keng Advocate & Solicitor 16 2024-12-11T02:00:15+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2024/ In the Matter of Isaac Riko Chua (1st Respondent) and Wong Shoou-Huang Jonathan (2nd Respondent) (Collectively, Respondents), Advocates & Solicitors_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2024/ 38acad588d6fe839d0ac922f4b89d080f75a6b90

Links from other tables