Former teacher jailed for voyeurism studies law but withdraws bar application 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 on to study law after his release.

In May 2023, at the age of 50, Mr Mohamad Shafi Khamis applied to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor, but was opposed by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) and the Singapore Institute. legal education (SILE).

Mr Mohamad Shafi later withdrew his application and the court allowed this and set a minimum exclusion period of two years, meaning he cannot apply for admission into the country during this period.

In a verdict released on Monday (October 28), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said this was the first time a person claiming to be a lawyer had been found guilty of serious sexual offenses and served his sentence.

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

However, he said it needed to consider whether his admission at this time poses a real risk of undermining public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice and whether more time is needed “to allow the court and stakeholders to come to their senses.” . assured that he is a suitable person to enter the profession.”

CASE

Mr Mohamad Shafi worked as a teacher at an undisclosed school in Singapore until April 2018, when he resigned.

He later pleaded guilty to four charges (six more were taken into account) and was sentenced in March 2022 to 10 weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of S$2,000.

He filmed a 31-year-old police officer showering in the bathroom of his condominium club, a 51-year-old male teacher using a urinal at the school they both attended, and a 16-year-old student using a urinal. .

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

It was accepted that Mr Mohamad Shafi was suffering from a variety of mental illnesses at the time of the offences, including severe depression and voyeurism 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 Shafi enrolled in the Juris Doctor (JD) program at Singapore Management University and received a JD (High Merit).

From January to July 2023, he completed his internship at Vanilla Law under Mr. Goh Aik Leng as his Senior Advocate.

He then applied to be admitted to the Bar, but the AGC, LawSoc and SILE objected, relying largely on his alleged deficiencies in disclosure.

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

Mr Mohamad Shafi said that the Ministry of Education had not taken any disciplinary action and that he had not reported the offenses to the Ministry of Education or other school staff.

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

He said he told his judges about the crimes but not his supervising lawyer, explaining that the firm did not ask him if he had any criminal history.

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

The AGC said Mr Mohamad Shafi 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 appellant’s alleged shortcomings in his disclosures in support of its argument that the character flaws revealed by his crimes remained unresolved.” , – noted the Chairman of the Supreme Court. .

The AGC alleged that Mr Mohamad Shafi had a “tendency to conceal details of his past offenses where possible in the hope that they would not come to light, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the seriousness of his misconduct”.

LawSoc asked for a minimum exclusion period of at least two years, but no more than three years, saying Mr Mohamad Shafi’s character issues “arise from his insincerity” and not from a lack of progress in rehabilitation.

SILE’s position was broadly consistent with that of the AGC, noting Mr Mohamad Shafi’s selective disclosure of his crimes while omitting information about his supervising lawyer.

Mr. Mohamad Shafi did not submit any written submissions but stated his position in an affidavit where he wrote: “While I respect the position taken by the AGC, I am nevertheless very disappointed and very saddened that my admission to the panel lawyers will have to be put on hold.”

He said he had registered as a volunteer with AIDS Action, describing it as a course of action to resolve or prevent a recurrence of his persistent depressive disorder with anxiety disorder and voyeurism disorder.

He wrote that he would “continue to reflect and strive to achieve a deeper understanding of the ethical implications of my actions” and that his efforts would ensure that by the time he filed a new application he would be “ready to provide such information.” in relation to these relations as may be required.”

FINDINGS OF THE CHIEF JUDGE

Chief Justice Menon said it was unclear to him how well-founded the concerns raised by stakeholders were. Rather, “there was nothing to suggest that the applicant was attempting to conceal the fact of his crimes.”

“In my view, whenever clarification or further documentation was requested from the applicant, he complied to the best of his ability,” the judge said.

He was not persuaded that “Mr Mohamad Shafi’s attitude towards his revelations could be said to indicate a lack of ethical understanding or abrogation of his responsibility for the crimes.”

Chief Justice Menon added that the fact that he did not disclose his misconduct to his supervising solicitor was not relevant to the current investigation as there was no clear provision for a trainee solicitor to disclose his previous convictions to the supervising solicitor.

He noted that Mr Mohamad Shafi remained clean for six years after committing the offences, attending and graduating from law school before taking the bar exams.

“The fact that the applicant maintained a clean record despite the considerable amount of stress that comes with undergoing legal education and training while also navigating the criminal justice process struck me as important and suggested that real progress had been made. “, said the judge.

He said this was particularly important because his inability to cope with the stress of his workload as a teacher was medically identified as a significant cause of the offending.

However, the chief judge admitted that “he still has some way to go, mainly due to the gravity of the offenses and the consequent need for the court to be fully satisfied that he has been fully rehabilitated.”

Although Mr Mohamad Shafi had served a 10-week prison sentence for his crimes, the judge said that “this was one of those cases where, in the public eye, the applicant’s confession could reasonably raise concerns about the standards of honesty and virtue expected of members of the legal profession.” profession, which is an integral part of the administration of justice.”

“However, this had to be carefully weighed against the significant period of time since then during which the applicant has kept his reputation clear,” the judge said.

In conclusion, he concluded that although significant progress had already been made, some time would be required before Mr. Mohamad Shafi could be entrusted with the position of bailiff.

“I have concluded that a minimum exclusion period of two years was appropriate in the circumstances. Assuming the applicant stays the course and maintains his clean record, he will remain crime-free and maintain a productive and rehabilitative path for eight years, which seemed sufficient to resolve the remaining issues,” the Chief Justice said.