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

In May 2023, aged 50, Mr Mohamad Shafee Khamis applied for admission as a barrister and barrister but faced objections from the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) and the Singapore Institute. Department of Legal Education (SILE).

Mr Mohamad Shafee subsequently withdrew his application, with the court granting permission and imposing a minimum two-year exclusion period, meaning he could not apply for admission within that period.

In the judgment announced on Monday (October 28), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said this was the first case in which an aspiring lawyer was convicted and served time for serious sexual offences.

“On one level this may mean that he has paid his debt to society, has been rehabilitated and is ready to reintegrate as a member of society,” the Chief Justice said.

But he said it was necessary to consider whether admitting him at this time “created 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 stakeholders to make up their minds”. gave assurance that he was a fit and proper person for admission to the profession”.

CASE

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

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

He filmed a 31-year-old male police officer showering in his apartment’s clubhouse restroom, 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. .

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

It was accepted that Mr Mohamad Shafee was suffering from several psychiatric disorders, including severe depression and voyeurism disorder, at the time of the crimes.

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 Business University and graduated with JD (High Merit).

From January to July 2023, he undertook and completed his practice training in Vanilla Law as supervising attorney for Mr. Goh Aik Leng.

He subsequently applied for admission to the bar but the AGC, LawSoc and SILE appealed, largely based on his alleged omissions in disclosures.

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

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

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

He said he disclosed the crimes to character judges but not to his supervising attorney, and explained that the firm did not ask him if he had any criminal history.

After reviewing the responses, the AGC wrote to Mr Mohamad Shafee stating that his crimes “clearly (demonstrate) a lack of integrity, honesty and trustworthiness” and that it would object to his application for admission.

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

“The AGC did not base its case directly on any breach of the duty of candour, but appears to rely on alleged deficiencies in the applicant’s statements to support its contention that the character flaws exposed by the applicant’s crimes remained unresolved,” the Chief Justice said. .

The AGC argued that Mr Mohamad Shafee “tends to conceal details of his past wrongdoings wherever possible in the hope that they will not come to light, which reveals a lack of insight into the seriousness of his wrongdoing”.

LawSoc requested a minimum exclusion period of not less than two years and not more than three years, saying Mr. Mohamad Shafee’s character issues “arrive from a lack of sincerity” and not a lack of rehabilitative progress.

SILE’s position was generally consistent with that of the AGC; He was highlighting Mr Mohamad Shafee’s selectiveness in his statements about his crimes by excluding his supervising lawyer.

Mr Mohamad Shafee did not make any written submissions but gave his own view in a statement, writing: “While I respect the position taken by the AGC, I am nevertheless very disappointed and very sorry that my admission to the Bar has been delayed.”

He said he had voluntarily registered himself with Aids Action, describing it as an action plan to resolve and/or prevent relapse of his persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress and voyeurism disorder.

He wrote that he would “continue to consider and seek a better understanding of the ethical implications of my actions” and that his efforts would ensure that he “will be prepared to provide such information” when he makes a new application. “as may be necessary in relation to these matters”.

CHIEF JUDGE’S FINDINGS

Chief Justice Menon said it was not clear to him whether the concerns raised by stakeholders were fully valid. On the contrary, “there was nothing to suggest that the applicant attempted to conceal his crimes”.

“From what I have seen, whenever the applicant was asked for clarification or additional documentation, he complied to the best of his ability,” the judge said.

He was unconvinced that Mr Mohamad Shafee’s “conduct towards his disclosures could be said to indicate an evasion of his responsibility for the crimes or a lack of ethical insight”.

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

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

“The fact that the applicant maintained a clean record while managing the criminal justice process, amidst the considerable stress of studying law and professional training, impressed me and showed that real progress was being made,” the judge said.

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

However, the Chief Justice acknowledged that he “has some distance to go, mainly due to the gravity of the offenses and the resulting need for the court to be fully satisfied that he has been fully rehabilitated”.

Although Mr Mohamad Shafee was sentenced to 10 weeks in prison for his crimes, the judge said: “This was one of those cases in which, in the public eye, the applicant’s admission could reasonably give rise to concerns about the standards of honesty and virtue expected of members of the legal profession, which are integral to the administration of justice.

“However, this had to be weighed carefully against the significant period of time that had elapsed since the applicant maintained a clean record,” the judge said.

In conclusion, it found that, despite the significant progress already made, some time was needed before Mr Mohamad Shafee could be appointed as a court officer.

“I concluded that a minimum suspension period of two years was appropriate in the circumstances. Assuming the applicant continues on this path and maintains his clean record, he will have been crime-free and on a productive and rehabilitative path for eight years, which appeared to be sufficient to address any remaining concerns.” said the Chief Justice.