SINGAPORE: A former teacher who filmed victims using urinals – including his male colleague and a 16-year-old student – has been jailed but continued to study law after his release.

At the age of 50 in May 2023, Mr Mohamad Shafee Khamis applied to be admitted as a solicitor and advocate but was met with objections from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) and of the Singapore Institute. of Legal Education (SILE).

Mr Mohamad Shafee later withdrew his application, with the court allowing it and imposing a minimum exclusion period of two years, meaning he cannot apply to be admitted during this period.

In a ruling published on Monday (October 28), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said it was the first case where a person seeking to become a lawyer had been convicted of serious sex offenses and served time.

“At one level, this could suggest that he had paid his debt to society, had been rehabilitated and was ready to be reintegrated as a member of society,” the chief justice said.

However, he said it was necessary to consider whether his admission at this time “presented a real risk of undermining public confidence in the legal profession and in the administration of justice” and whether more time was needed “for the court and interested parties to be assured that he is a fit and proper person for admission to the profession”.

EVENT

Mr Mohamad Shafee was a teacher at an unidentified school in Singapore until April 2018 when he resigned.

He later pleaded guilty to four charges, with a further six taken into consideration, and was sentenced to 10 weeks in prison and a $2,000 fine in March 2022.

He had filmed a 31-year-old police officer showering in his condominium clubhouse, a 51-year-old teacher using a urinal at the school they both teach at, and a 16-year-old student using a urinal. .

He also filmed a student changing in the school toilet and had 128 obscene videos.

It was accepted that Mr Mohamad Shafee was suffering from multiple psychiatric conditions at the time of the offences, including severe depression and voyeuristic disorder.

He did not appeal the decision, but served his sentence from April 19 to June 4, 2022.

From July 2019 to June 2022, Mr. Mohamad Shafee enrolled in the Juris Doctor (JD) program at Singapore Management University and graduated with a JD (High Merit).

From January to July 2023, he undertook and completed his practical training with Vanilla Law with Mr Goh Aik Leng as his supervising lawyer.

He then applied to be admitted to the Bar, but the AGC, LawSoc and SILE raised objections, largely based on his alleged shortcomings in his disclosures.

The three stakeholders also asked Mr Mohamad Shafee several questions, such as whether he had disclosed his offenses to the Ministry of Education (MOE) and whether the MOE had taken any disciplinary action against him.

Mr Mohamad Shafee said the MOE did not take any disciplinary action and did not disclose the offenses to the MOE or other school staff.

In response to further questions, Mr Mohamad Shafee said he did not disclose the offenses to SMU as it did not occur to him that he was required to do so.

He said he disclosed the offenses to character judges but not to his supervising attorney, explaining that the firm did not ask him if he had a criminal record.

After reviewing the responses, the AGC wrote to Mr Mohamad Shafee to say that his offenses “clearly demonstrate a lack of probity, integrity and trustworthiness” and that he would object to his application for admission.

The AGC argued that Mr Mohamad Shafee should be given a minimum exclusion period of at least four years.

“The AGC did not base its case directly on any breach of the duty of candor, although it appeared to rely on the applicant’s alleged deficiencies in his disclosures to support his contention that the character defects revealed by his offenses remain unaddressed.” remarked the Chief Justice. .

The AGC alleged that Mr Mohamad Shafee “had a tendency to suppress details of his past deeds whenever possible in the hope that they would not come to light, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the seriousness of his wrongdoing”.

LawSoc called for a minimum disqualification period of not less than two years but not more than three years, saying Mr Mohamad Shafee’s character problems “stem from his lack of candor” and not a lack of progress in rehabilitation.

SILE’s position was broadly aligned with that of the AGC, noting the selective nature of Mr Mohamad Shafee’s disclosures about his offenses – omitting his supervising lawyer.

Mr Mohamad Shafee did not submit any written submissions but expressed his position in an affidavit in which he wrote: “While I respect the position taken by the AGC, I am nevertheless very disappointed and very saddened that my admission to the Bar will must be delayed”.

He said he had registered as a volunteer with Action for Aids, describing it as a course of action to resolve and or prevent a recurrence of his persistent depressive disorder with anxiety distress and voyeuristic disorder.

He wrote that he would “continue to reflect and seek to gain a better understanding of the ethical implications of my actions” and that his efforts would ensure that, until he made a new request, he would be “ready to provide such information. in relation to these aspects, as the case may be”.

FINDINGS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Chairman Menon said it was not clear to him that the concerns expressed by stakeholders were entirely valid. Rather, there was “nothing to suggest that the applicant attempted to suppress the act of his crimes.”

“As we have seen, every time clarification or additional documentation was requested from the plaintiff, he complied to the best of his ability,” the judge said.

He was not convinced that “Mr Mohamad Shafee’s attitude towards his disclosures could suggest a lack of ethical understanding or an abrogation of his liability for offences”.

Chief Justice Menon added that his failure to disclose his misconduct to his supervising solicitor was not relevant to the current inquiry as there was no express provision for a trainee solicitor to disclose previous convictions to the supervising solicitor.

He noted that Mr. Mohamad Shafee has maintained a clean record for six years since his crimes, enrolling and graduating from law school before passing the bar exams.

“The fact that the applicant maintained a clean record amid the not insignificant stress that comes with pursuing a course of legal education and professional training, while simultaneously navigating the criminal justice process, struck me as significant and suggested that real progress was being made. “, said the judge.

He said this was particularly important because his inability to cope with the stress of his workload as a teacher was identified in medical evidence as a significant contributor to the offending.

However, the Chief Justice accepted that he “had some distance to go, mainly because of the seriousness of the offenses and the consequent need for the court to be fully satisfied that he had been fully rehabilitated”.

Although Mr Mohamad Shafee served a 10-week prison sentence for his offences, the judge said “this was one of those cases where, in the public eye, the applicant’s admission could reasonably give rise to concerns about to standards. of probity and virtue expected from members of the legal profession, which constitute an integral pillar in the administration of justice”.

“This, however, had to be weighed carefully against the significant period of time that had elapsed since then during which the applicant had maintained a clean record,” the judge said.

In conclusion, he found that some time was needed, despite the considerable progress already made, before Mr. Mohamad Shafee could be committed as an officer of the court.

“We concluded that a minimum exclusion period of two years was appropriate in the circumstances. Assuming the applicant stays the course and keeps his record clean, he will have remained crime-free and maintained a productive and rehabilitative pathway for eight years, and that seemed sufficient to address the remaining concerns,” the Chief Justice said.