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

At the age of 50 in May 2023, Mr. Mohamad Shafee Khamis applied for admission as an advocate and solicitor, but faced objections from the Office of the Attorney General (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 disqualification period of two years, meaning he cannot apply for admission during that period.

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

“From one point of view, it might suggest that he has paid his debt to society, that he has been rehabilitated and that he was ready to be reintegrated as a member of society,” said the chief judge.

He added, however, that it was necessary to consider whether his admission at this stage “presented a real risk of undermining public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice”, and whether more time was needed “so that the court and stakeholders are satisfied that he was a fit and proper person for admission to 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 six more taken into consideration, and was sentenced to 10 weeks in prison and fined S$2,000 in March 2022.

He had filmed a 31-year-old police officer showering in the bathroom of his condo clubhouse, 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 in the school bathroom and made 128 obscene films.

It was recognized that Mr Mohamad Shafee was suffering from multiple psychiatric disorders at the material time, including severe depression and voyeuristic disorders.

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 obtained 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 supervising lawyer.

He subsequently applied to be called to the Bar, but the AGC, LawSoc and SILE raised objections, relying largely on his alleged deficiencies 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 Ministry of Education had taken disciplinary action against him.

Mr Mohamad Shafee said the Ministry of Education took no disciplinary action and did not disclose the offenses to the Ministry of Education or any other school staff.

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

He said he disclosed the infractions to his character referees, but not to his supervising attorney, explaining that the firm did not ask him whether he had a criminal history.

After considering the responses, the AGC wrote to Mr Mohamad Shafee to tell him that his offenses “clearly demonstrated a deficit of probity, integrity and reliability” and that it would oppose his application for admission .

AGC argued that Mr. Mohamad Shafee should benefit from a minimum disqualification period of at least four years.

“The AGC did not directly base its argument on a breach of the duty of candor, although it appeared to rely on the applicant’s alleged deficiencies in his disclosures to support its argument that the character flaws revealed by his offenses remain unresolved,” noted the chief justice. .

The 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 understanding of the seriousness of his wrongdoing.”

LawSoc requested a minimum disqualification period of at least two years, but no more than three years, saying Mr Mohamad Shafee’s character problems “stemmed from his lack of candor” and not a lack of progress in terms of 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 file any written submissions but outlined his position in an affidavit in which he wrote: “While I respect the position taken by the AGC, I am nevertheless very disappointed and saddened that my admission to the Bar must be delayed.”

He said he had signed up to volunteer with Action for Aids, describing this as an action plan to resolve and/or prevent a recurrence of his persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress and voyeuristic disorder.

He wrote that he would “continue to reflect and seek to better understand the ethical implications of my actions”, and that his efforts would ensure that when he reapplied, he would be “prepared to provide such information” . with regard to these aspects, as appropriate”.

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. On the contrary, “nothing indicates that the applicant attempted to conceal the reality of his offenses”.

“In my opinion, each time clarification or additional 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 revelations could be taken to suggest a lack of ethical understanding or an abrogation of his responsibility for the offences”.

Chief Justice Menon added that his failure to disclose his misconduct to his supervising lawyer was not relevant to the ongoing investigation because there was no express provision allowing a trainee lawyer to disclose prior convictions to the supervising attorney.

He noted that Mr Mohamad Shafee had maintained a clean record for six years since the offences, enrolling and obtaining his law degree before passing the bar exams.

“The fact that the applicant maintained a clean record amid the significant stress that accompanies pursuing legal studies and professional training, while simultaneously navigating the criminal process, seemed significant to me and suggested that real progress was being made,” the judge said.

He said this was particularly significant because his inability to cope with the stress of his teaching workload had been identified by medical evidence as a significant factor in the offences.

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

Although Mr Mohamad Shafee had 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 arouse concerns about the standards of probity and virtue expected of members of the legal profession, which constitutes an essential pillar of the administration of justice.”

“This must, however, be carefully weighed against the considerable time which has passed since then during which the applicant has maintained a clean record,” the judge said.

In conclusion, he believes that it will take time, despite the considerable progress already made, before Mr. Mohamad Shafee can be entrusted with the role of judicial officer.

“I have concluded that a minimum disqualification period of two years was appropriate in the circumstances. Assuming the applicant stays the course and keeps his criminal record clean, he will have remained free from crime and will have followed a productive and rehabilitative journey for eight years, and that seemed sufficient to address the remaining concerns,” the chief justice said.