Ariffin Iskandar Sha bin Ali Akbar

Three applicants for admission as advocates and solicitors, in Admission of Advocates and Solicitors Nos 108 of 2023, 371 and 565 of 2024, had each met the requirements of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 before the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2024 took effect on 17 July 2024. Under the transitional provisions, withdrawing an application would likely force them to retake the Part B examinations and serve a longer 12-month practice training period. The Attorney-General, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education and the Law Society therefore proposed that any exclusionary period be effected by a stay or adjournment. The Chief Justice decided the matters on written submissions.

Mr Ariffin Iskandar Sha bin Ali Akbar, as sole administrator of an online news platform, had published a story from a member of the public alleging mistreatment at KK Women's and Children's Hospital. He gave the hospital 20 minutes to respond before publishing. The story was fabricated; he removed it, apologised and published a retraction, and on 26 August 2024 he was convicted of criminal defamation and fined $8,000. Mr Foo Zhong Yu Aaron had, as a first-year law student, recorded and transcribed a classmate's moot arguments without his knowledge and used them in his own memorandum. Mr Harish Rai had copied parts of a classmate's memorandum she had sent him to proofread, and denied it throughout the university's inquiry.

1. Whether a Legacy Case should be adjourned or stayed to give effect to an exclusionary period, and when each is appropriate.
2. Whether the Protective Principle was engaged by Mr Ariffin's conviction for criminal defamation.
3. Whether Mr Foo and Mr Rai were fit and proper persons to be admitted and, if not, how long their exclusionary periods should be.

On procedure, the court held it had power under O 3 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 and s 12(5A) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 to stay or adjourn. Mirroring Re Gabriel Silas Tang Rafferty [2024] 4 SLR 401, short periods (typically under six months) call for an adjournment, longer ones for a stay, which also avoids deemed discontinuance after a year without a step; cases warranting dismissal should still be dismissed.

For Mr Ariffin, the stakeholders accepted there was no character issue. Under Re Mohamad Shafee Khamis [2024] 6 SLR 173 the Protective Principle applies only to grave offences, such as serious dishonesty or attacks on the administration of justice. His offence was one of inadequate care, not knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth as in Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2023] 4 SLR 1760, and he had acted quickly to apologise and was candid throughout.

For Mr Foo, the court set aside the second incident as carelessness. The first was serious and premeditated; his confession reflected tactical realism, and his admission affidavits omitted the recording and understated the copying, which the university's comparison showed included word-for-word passages and a repeated typographical error. His claim to have forgotten was not accepted. The court imposed an 18-month exclusionary period.

For Mr Rai, the copied paragraphs appeared only after he saw his classmate's work, he showed no remorse in the inquiry, disclosed the offence only after a professor reminded him, and misdescribed his conduct to the court. Comparing Attorney-General v Shahira Banu d/o Khaja Moinudeen [2024] 4 SLR 1324, the court imposed three years.

The court ordered no stay or adjournment for Mr Ariffin, finding him fit and proper, and directed that his application be set down for hearing. It ordered Mr Foo's application stayed for 18 months and Mr Rai's for three years, each from 16 July 2025, on conditions that neither applies for admission elsewhere meanwhile and that lifting the stay depends on meeting the reasonable requirements of the stakeholders and the court. No order was made as to costs.