Former teacher, convicted of voyeurism, studies law, but after receiving opposition she withdraws her application for the bar

SINGAPORE: A former teacher who filmed victims using urinals – including his colleague and a 16-year-old student – was sentenced to prison but continued his law studies after his release.

In May 2023, Mohamad Shafee Khamis, at the age of 50, applied to become an advocate and solicitor, but was met with opposition from the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education ( STRENGTH).

Mr Mohamad Shafee later withdrew his application and the court allowed it and imposed a minimum exclusion period of two years, meaning he cannot apply for admission within that period.

According to the judgment made available on Monday (October 28), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon stated that this is the first case in which a person aspiring to become a lawyer has been convicted of serious sexual offenses and served his sentence.

“On the one hand, this may suggest that he had repaid his debt to society, had been rehabilitated and was ready to reintegrate as a member of society,” said the President of the Supreme Court.

However, it said that consideration should be given to whether his admission at this time “constitutes a real risk of undermining public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice” and whether more time is needed “for the court and interested parties to be able to ensure that he is a fit and proper person to be admitted.” to the profession.”

THING

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 in March 2022 he was sentenced to 10 weeks in prison and fined A$2,000.

He filmed a 31-year-old police officer showering in the club’s toilet of his apartment, a 51-year-old teacher using a urinal at the school where they both taught, and a 16-year-old student using a urinal.

He also filmed a student changing clothes in the school toilet and made 128 indecent films.

It was understood that at the time of the offenses Mr Mohamad Shafee suffered from a number of mental health conditions, including severe depression and voyeuristic disorder.

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

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

From January to July 2023, he completed and completed an internship at Vanilla Law, whose legal advisor was Mr. Goh Aik Leng.

He then applied to the Bar, but the AGC, LawSoc and SILE objected, based largely on alleged deficiencies in his disclosures.

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

Mr. Mohamad Shafee stated that MOE took no disciplinary action and that he did not disclose any wrongdoing to MOE or any other school staff member.

In response to other questions, Mr. Mohamad Shafee stated that he did not disclose the crimes to SMU because it did not occur to him that he was obliged to do so.

He said he disclosed the crimes to his character assessors but not to his supervising lawyer, explaining that the company did not ask him if he had any criminal history.

After reviewing the responses, the AGC wrote to Mohamad Shafee stating that his offenses “clearly (demonstrate) a deficit of honesty, integrity and credibility” and that it would oppose the granting of his application for admission.

The AGC found 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 failings in his evidence to support its contention that the character defects revealed by his crimes remained unresolved,” noted the Chief Justice.

The AGC argued that Mr Mohamad Shafee had a “tendency to conceal, wherever possible, the details of his past offenses in the hope that they would not come to light, which demonstrated a lack of insight into the seriousness of his offenses”.

LawSoc sought a minimum exclusion period of not less than two years but not more than three years, arguing that Mr Mohamad Shafee’s character problems “were a result of his lack of sincerity” and not a lack of progress in rehabilitation.

SILE’s position was broadly consistent with that of the AGC, noting the selective nature of the disclosures made by Mr Mohamad Shafee about his crimes – bypassing his supervising legal counsel.

Mr. Mohamad Shafee made no written submissions but set out 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 have to be delayed.”

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

He wrote that he would “continue to reflect and seek to achieve a better understanding of the ethical implications of my actions” and that his efforts would, by the time a new application is submitted, be “ready to provide such information with respect to these aspects if requested.”

FINDINGS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Chief Justice Menon said it was not clear to him whether the concerns expressed by interested parties were fully justified. On the contrary, “there was no indication that the applicant had tried to conceal the fact that he had committed the crimes.”

“In my opinion, whenever clarification or further documents were requested from the applicant, he complied to the best of his ability,” the judge said.

He was not persuaded that “Mr. Mohamad Shafee’s attitude towards his disclosures could be considered to suggest either a lack of ethical insight into the matter or an abrogation of responsibility for the crimes.”

Chief Justice Menon added that the fact that he had failed to disclose his misconduct to his solicitor was irrelevant to the present investigation as there was no express provision requiring a trainee solicitor to disclose previous convictions to his supervising solicitor.

He noted that Mr. Mohamad Shafee had no criminal record for six years after committing the crimes, enrolling in and completing law school before taking the bar exams.

“The fact that the applicant maintained a clean record despite the considerable stress of completing law school and vocational training, while also participating in a criminal trial, struck me as significant and suggested that real progress had been made,” the judge said.

He said this was particularly significant because medical evidence showed that his inability to cope with the stress of his teaching workload had a significant impact on the offenses committed.

However, the Chief Justice admitted that he “still had a long way to go, mainly due to the gravity of the offenses and the consequent need for the court to be completely satisfied that he had been fully rehabilitated.”

Although Mr Mohamad Shafee served a 10-week prison sentence for his offences, the judge said that “this was one of those cases where, in the eyes of the public, the reception of the applicant could reasonably raise concerns about the standards of honesty and virtue expected of members of the legal profession which constitute an integral pillar of the administration of justice.”

“However, this had to be carefully considered in the context of the considerable time that had passed since the applicant had maintained a clean record,” the judge said.

In conclusion, he stated that despite the significant progress that had already been made, some time would be needed before Mr. Mohamad Shafee could be appointed as an officer of the court.

“I have concluded that in the circumstances a minimum exclusion period of two years is appropriate. Assuming that the applicant maintains his current course and maintains a clean record, he will be free from crime and will be able to enjoy a productive and rehabilitative path for eight years, which seemed to be sufficient to dispel the remaining doubts,” said the President of the Supreme Court.