Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society: Disciplinary Proceedings, Referral Fees & Illegally Obtained Evidence
Wong Keng Leong Rayney appealed the High Court's dismissal of his application for judicial review of decisions by the Law Society of Singapore's disciplinary committee (DC). The DC was hearing charges against Wong for allegedly paying referral fees to an estate agent, Jenny Lee Pei Chuan, in violation of the Legal Profession Act. Wong argued the evidence was illegally obtained and the proceedings were an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Jenny's conduct did not constitute entrapment or illegal evidence gathering.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs and the usual consequential orders.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer for referral fees. The court addressed admissibility of illegally obtained evidence and abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Michael Hwang of Michael Hwang Desmond Ang of Michael Hwang |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Hwang | Michael Hwang |
| Desmond Ang | Michael Hwang |
| N Sreenivasan | Straits Law Practice LLC |
4. Facts
- Rayney Wong, a lawyer, was accused of paying referral fees to Jenny Lee for conveyancing business.
- Jenny Lee, an estate agent, filed a complaint with the Law Society about Wong's payment.
- The Law Society's inquiry committee found a prima facie case and referred it to the disciplinary committee.
- Jenny surreptitiously recorded her conversations with Wong.
- Wong paid Jenny $150 out of $500 received as legal fees for a fictitious transaction.
- Wong argued the evidence was illegally obtained and the proceedings were an abuse of process.
- The Disciplinary Committee found that Wong had voluntarily agreed to pay the referral fee.
5. Formal Citations
- Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore, CA 69/2006, [2007] SGCA 42
- Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore, , [2006] 4 SLR 934
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complaint received by the Law Society from Jenny Lee Pei Chuan | |
| Inquiry committee found a prima facie case for formal investigation | |
| Matter referred to the Disciplinary Committee | |
| Disciplinary charges made against the appellant | |
| Appellant applied to the DC for an order to disclose the identity of the instructing solicitor | |
| DC rejected the application | |
| Appellant submitted that he had no case to answer | |
| DC dismissed the appellant’s arguments | |
| Appellant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review | |
| Judge dismissed the leave application | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the evidence was not illegally obtained.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1991] SLR 220
- [1980] AC 402
- [1997] 3 SLR 922
- Entrapment as Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that Jenny's conduct did not constitute entrapment.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 1 WLR 2060
- Prematurity of Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court found it unnecessary to consider whether the leave application was premature.
- Category: Procedural
- Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had breached professional conduct rules by promising and paying referral fees.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Judicial Review
- Quashing of Disciplinary Committee's Decision
- Stay of Disciplinary Proceedings
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
- Breach of Professional Conduct Rules
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Professional Conduct
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 934 | Singapore | Sets out the relevant facts of the case. |
| How Poh Sun v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 220 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts have no discretion to reject illegally or improperly obtained evidence. |
| Regina v Sang | House of Lords | Yes | [1980] AC 402 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that courts have no discretion to reject illegally or improperly obtained evidence. |
| SM Summit Holdings Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that illegally obtained evidence procured by a preceding unlawful act by a state party is inadmissible. |
| Regina v Looseley | House of Lords | Yes | [2001] 1 WLR 2060 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that entrapment is an abuse of process and the consequent prosecution should be stayed. |
| Re Singh Kalpanath | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that decisions of inquiry committees and disciplinary committees are subject to judicial review. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 85 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that decisions of inquiry committees and disciplinary committees are subject to judicial review. |
| Regina v Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd, ex parte Mordens Ltd | English Courts | Yes | (1991) 3 Admin LR 254 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that the court will grant judicial review of a decision taken during the course of a hearing. |
| Regina v Bedwellty Justices, Ex parte Williams | House of Lords | Yes | [1997] AC 225 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that to convict or commit for trial without any admissible evidence of guilt is to fall into an error of law. |
| Neill v North Antrim Magistrates’ Court | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 1220 | England and Wales | Cited for drawing a distinction between a case of inadmissibility of evidence and one of insufficiency of evidence. |
| Kuruma, son of Kaniu v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1955] AC 197 | United Kingdom | Dealt with evidence obtained in the course of and by means of an unlawful act (ie, an illegal search). |
| Cheng Swee Tiang v PP | High Court | Yes | [1964] MLJ 291 | Malaysia | Dealt with the case as one concerning illegally obtained evidence, although the police had a valid search warrant to search the accused’s premises. |
| Ajmer Singh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1986] SLR 454 | Singapore | Was a case of illegally obtained evidence (the doctor took a blood specimen from the accused without his consent as required by the relevant legislation) and had nothing to do with entrapment. |
| Goh Lai Wak v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 748 | Singapore | Referred to its decision in How Poh Sun. |
| PP v Rozman bin Jusoh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 317 | Singapore | Referred to its decision in How Poh Sun. |
| Amran bin Eusuff v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Referred to its decision in How Poh Sun. |
| Nottingham City Council v Amin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 WLR 1071 | England and Wales | Defined luring and causing usually involve the accused being incited, instigated, persuaded, pressurised or wheedled into committing the offence. |
| Public Trustee v By Products Traders Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 449 | Singapore | So overwhelming is the public interest in maintaining the dignity and honour of the legal profession through the preservation of the highest ethical and moral standards amongst solicitors that the courts cannot risk allowing it to be compromised by even a few recalcitrant individuals within the profession. |
| Re Serif Systems Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1997] EWHC Admin 369 | England and Wales | Motive was a relevant factor in determining whether the private prosecutions initiated in that case were an abuse of process. |
| Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte South Coast Shipping Co Ltd | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1993] QB 645 | England and Wales | The mere presence of an indirect or improper motive for launching a prosecution did not necessarily vitiate it and the court would be slow to halt such a prosecution in a case of mixed motives unless the conduct was truly oppressive. |
| Speed Seal Limited v Paddington | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 1 WLR 1327 | England and Wales | One who uses a legal process, whether criminal or civil, against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed, is subject to liability to the other for harm caused by the abuse of process. |
| Attorney-General of the Gambia v Pierre Sarr N’Jie | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | Yes | [1961] AC 617 | United Kingdom | This court is not sitting as an ordinary court of law but as the final disciplinary court under the Act, and, in that capacity, it is exercising its judicial power as a disciplinary court under the Act. |
| Re Saluja | Unknown | Yes | (2006) 92 BMLR 153 | United Kingdom | The doctrine of abuse of process applied in Looseley had no application to misconduct by private non-state agent provocateurs. |
| R v Latif | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 WLR 104 | England and Wales | The fact that actions are technically unlawful is not regarded in English law as a ground for treating them as an abuse of process. |
| Ridgeway v The Queen | High Court of Australia | Yes | [(1995)] 184 CLR 19 | Australia | The fact that actions are technically unlawful is not regarded in English law as a ground for treating them as an abuse of process. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 11A(2)(b) Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Sections 415, 511 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sections 83(2)(d), 83(2)(e), 83(2)(h) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Referral Fees
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Entrapment
- Illegally Obtained Evidence
- Abuse of Process
- Legal Profession Act
- Professional Conduct Rules
- Conveyancing
- Sting Operation
- Instructing Solicitor
15.2 Keywords
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Referral Fees
- Legal Profession
- Singapore
- Law Society
- Entrapment
- Evidence
- Judicial Review
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Disciplinary Procedures | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
| Entrapment | 40 |
| Criminal Law | 30 |
| Company Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Regulatory Offences