SINGAPORE: A former teacher who filmed victims using urinals – including his male colleague and a 16-year-old student – was sentenced to jail but went on to study law after his release.
At the age of 50 in May 2023, Mr Mohamad Shafee Khamis applied to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor, but was met with objections from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE).
Mr Mohamad Shafee later withdrew his application, with the court allowing it and imposing a minimum exclusionary period of two years, which means he cannot apply to be admitted within this period.
According to a judgment made available on Monday (Oct 28), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said this was the first case where a person applying to be a lawyer had been convicted of serious sexual offences and served his sentence.
“At one level, this might suggest that he has paid his debt to society, been rehabilitated, and was ready to be reintegrated as a member of society,” said the Chief Justice.
However, he said it was necessary to consider whether admitting him at this time “presented a real risk of undermining public trust in the legal profession and the administration of justice”, and whether more time was needed “for the court and the stakeholders to be assured that he was a fit and proper person for admission into the profession”.
THE CASE
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 another six taken into consideration, and was sentenced to 10 weeks’ jail and a fine of S$2,000 in March 2022.
He had filmed a 31-year-old male police officer showering in his condominium’s clubhouse toilet, a 51-year-old male teacher using a urinal in the school they both taught at, and a 16-year-old male student using a urinal.
He also filmed a student changing in the school toilet, and had 128 obscene films.
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 against the decision, but served his sentence from Apr 19 to Jun 4 in 2022.
From July 2019 to June 2022, Mr Mohamad Shafee enrolled in the Juris Doctor (JD) programme at Singapore Management University and graduated with a JD (High Merit).
From January to July in 2023, he undertook and completed his practice training with Vanilla Law, with Mr Goh Aik Leng as his supervising solicitor.
He then applied to be admitted to the Bar, but the AGC, LawSoc and SILE raised objections, relying heavily on his alleged shortcomings in his disclosures.
The three stakeholders also asked Mr Mohamad Shafee multiple questions, such as whether he had disclosed his offences to the Ministry of Education (MOE) and whether MOE had taken any disciplinary action against him.
Mr Mohamad Shafee stated that MOE had not taken any disciplinary action and that he had not disclosed the offences to MOE or any other staff members at the school.
In response to other questions, Mr Mohamad Shafee said he had not disclosed the offences to SMU, as it had not occurred to him that he was obliged to do so.
He said he had disclosed the offences to his character referees, but not his supervising solicitor, explaining that the firm had not asked him whether he had any criminal antecedents.
After reviewing the replies, AGC wrote to Mr Mohamad Shafee to say his offences “clearly (demonstrate) a deficit of probity, integrity and trustworthiness” and that it would object to his application for admission.
AGC submitted that Mr Mohamad Shafee should be given a minimum exclusionary period of at least four years.
“The AGC did not premise its case directly on any breach of the duty of candour though it seemed to rely on the applicant’s alleged shortcomings in his disclosures to support its case that the character defects revealed by his offences remain unresolved,” noted the Chief Justice.
AGC argued that Mr Mohamad Shafee had “a tendency to suppress details of his past wrongdoings wherever possible, in the hope that they would not come to light, which demonstrated a lack of insight into the gravity of his wrongdoing”.
LawSoc asked for a minimum exclusionary period of not less than two years, but not more than three years, saying that Mr Mohamad Shafee’s character issues “stemmed from his lack of candour” and not a lack of rehabilitative progress.
SILE’s position was broadly aligned with the AGC’s, noting the selectiveness of Mr Mohamad Shafee’s disclosures about his offences – omitting his supervising solicitor.
Mr Mohamad Shafee did not file any written submissions but gave his position in an affidavit, where he wrote: “While I respect the position taken by the AGC, I am nonetheless very disappointed and much saddened that my admission to the Bar will have to be delayed.”
He said he had registered himself as a volunteer with Action for Aids, describing this as a course of action to resolve and or prevent a reoccurrence of his persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress and voyeuristic disorder.
He wrote that he would “continue to reflect and seek to achieve an enhanced understanding of the ethical implications of my actions”, and that his efforts will ensure that by the time he made a fresh application, he would be “ready to provide such information in relation to these respects as may be required”.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S FINDINGS
Chief Justice Menon said it was not clear to him that the concerns raised by the stakeholders were entirely valid. Rather, there was “nothing to suggest that the applicant had tried to suppress the fact of his offences”.
“As I saw it, each time a clarification or further documentation had been sought from the applicant, he had complied to the extent that he could,” said the judge.
He was not persuaded that Mr Mohamad Shafee’s “attitude towards his disclosures could be said to be suggestive of a lack of ethical insight into or an abrogation of his responsibility for the offences”.
Chief Justice Menon added that the fact that he had not disclosed 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 had maintained a clean record for six years since the offences, enrolling in and graduating from law school before passing the Bar exams.
“The fact that the applicant maintained a clean record amidst the not insignificant amount of stress that comes with pursuing a course of legal study and professional training, while concurrently 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 significant because his inability to cope with stress from his workload as a teacher had been identified in medical evidence as significant contributors to the offences.
However, the Chief Justice accepted that “he had some distance to go, principally on account of the gravity of the offences and the consequent need for the court to be entirely satisfied that he had been fully rehabilitated”.
Although Mr Mohamad Shafee had served a sentence of 10 weeks’ jail for his offences, the judge said “this was one of those cases where in the eyes of the public, the admission of the applicant might reasonably give rise to concerns as to the standards of probity and virtue expected of members in the legal profession, which is an integral pillar in the administration of justice”.
“This, however, had to be carefully weighed against the significant length of time which had since elapsed in which the applicant had maintained a clean record,” said the judge.
In conclusion, he found that some time was needed despite the considerable progress already made, before Mr Mohamad Shafee could be entrusted as an officer of the court.
“I concluded that a minimum exclusionary period of two years was appropriate in the circumstances. Assuming the applicant stays the course and maintains his clean record, he will have stayed free of crime and maintained a productive and rehabilitative path for eight years, and this seemed sufficient to address the remaining concerns,” said the Chief Justice.