Ex-teacher, jailed for voyeurism, studies law but withdraws application from bar after objections arise

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

At the age of 50 in May 2023, Mr Mohamad Shafee Khamis applied to be admitted as a barrister and barrister 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 request, after which the court granted this and imposed a minimum exclusion period of two years, meaning that he cannot apply for admission within this period.

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

“At some level, this could indicate that he has paid his debt to society, has 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 “posed a real risk of undermining public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice”, and whether more time was needed “for the court and the interested parties to be assured that he was a suitable person for admission to the profession”.

THE CASE

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

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

He had filmed a 31-year-old male police officer showering in the toilet of his condominium, a 51-year-old male teacher using a urinal at the school where they both taught, and a 16-year-old male student using a urinal used. .

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

It was accepted that Mr Mohamad Shafee was suffering from multiple psychiatric conditions at the time of the offenses, including major 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 attended and completed his practical training at Vanilla Law, with Mr Goh Aik Leng as his supervising lawyer.

He subsequently applied to be called to the Bar, but the AGC, LawSoc and SILE objected, relying heavily on his alleged deficiencies in his disclosures.

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

Mr Mohamad Shafee stated that MOE had not taken any disciplinary action and that he had not disclosed the violations to MOE or other staff members of the school.

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

He said he disclosed the violations to his character referees but not to his supervising attorney, explaining that the company had not asked him if he had any criminal history.

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

AGC stated that Mr Mohamad Shafee should be given a minimum ineligibility 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 disclosures to support its position that the character defects revealed by his offending were unresolved remain,” the Chief Justice said. .

AGC argued that Mr Mohamad Shafee “tended to suppress details of his past misdeeds wherever possible in the hope that they would not come to light, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the seriousness of his misdeeds” .

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

SILE’s position was broadly consistent with that of the AGC, noting the selectivity of Mr Mohamad Shafee’s disclosures about his offending, omitting his supervising lawyer.

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

He said he had signed up as a volunteer with Action for Aids and described this as a course of action to resolve or prevent a recurrence of his persistent depressive disorder with anxious tension 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 will ensure that by the time he files a new application, he would be “ready to provide such information to provide’. with regard to these aspects as may be necessary”.

FINDINGS OF THE MAIN JUDICIAL

Chief Justice Menon said it was not clear to him whether the stakeholders’ concerns were entirely valid. Instead, there was “nothing to indicate that the applicant had attempted to suppress the fact of his offences”.

“As I saw it, every time clarification or further documentation was requested from the applicant, he had complied to the best of his ability,” the judge said.

He was not convinced that Mohamad Shafee’s “attitude towards his revelations could indicate a lack of ethical understanding or an abdication of his responsibility for the crimes”.

Chief Justice Menon added that his failure to disclose his misconduct to his supervising lawyer was not relevant to the present investigation as there was no express provision that a trainee lawyer would disclose previous convictions to the supervising lawyer.

He noted that Mr Mohamad Shafee had maintained a clean criminal record for six years since the incident, enrolling in and graduating from law school before passing the bar exams.

“The fact that the applicant has maintained a clean criminal record amid the not insignificant amount of stress associated with pursuing legal studies and vocational training, while simultaneously navigating the criminal justice process, I found significant and suggested that real progress is being made was booked. ”, said the judge.

He said this was particularly important as medical evidence showed his inability to cope with the stress of his teaching workload was a significant contributor to the offences.

However, the Chief Justice accepted that “he still had a long way to go, mainly due to 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 had served a ten-week prison sentence for his offences, the judge said: “This was one of those cases where in the eyes of the public the applicant’s confession could reasonably raise concerns about the standards of honesty and virtue expected of members in the legal profession, which is an integral pillar in the administration of justice.”

“However, this had to be carefully balanced against the significant time that had passed since then during which the applicant had maintained a clean criminal record,” the judge said.

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

“I concluded that a minimum ineligibility period of two years was appropriate in the circumstances. Assuming the applicant stays the course and maintains his clean record, he will have remained crime-free and on a productive and rehabilitative trajectory for eight years, and this seemed sufficient to allay the remaining concerns,” the Chief Justice said .