Court to decide on penalty for M Ravi
Lawyer M Ravi arrives at the Supreme Court on Sept 6, 2016. Photo: Jason Quah/TODAY
SINGAPORE — In dealing with lawyers who have not conducted themselves properly, the courts ought to “punish to protect the standing and dignity of the (legal) profession”, said Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon yesterday, as the court deliberated on the penalty for Mr M Ravi, who pleaded guilty to four charges of misconduct before a disciplinary tribunal last year.
Mr Ravi was found guilty of creating a ruckus at the Law Society premises on Feb 10 last year, a video clip of which was later circulated online.
Another charge involved making inappropriate statements against the Law Society president and his family members in a Facebook post. Two other charges involve Mr Ravi making false allegations against two lawyers in February last year.
The tribunal referred Mr Ravi’s case to the Court of Three Judges as it had no power to fine or censure a non-practising lawyer.
Yesterday, Mr Ravi’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam sought an overall fine of S$10,000 (S$2,500 per offence) and pleaded for the court to take his client’s mental illness into account.
Solicitor for the Law Society Mr Sean La’Brooy did not object to a fine, but sought a higher quantum of at least S$5,000 for one of the offences, arguing that his condition should not “exonerate” him.
The three judges that heard the case — CJ Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Tay Yong Kwang — had reserved judgment. But during the hearing, CJ Menon had questioned the weight that should be placed on Mr Ravi’s mental condition in deciding on his penalty.
Describing Mr Ravi’s conduct as “reprehensible” and “disturbing”, CJ Menon asked: “(Are we) not going to hold a solicitor to the standards expected of him? ... The whole thing may have been avoided if (Mr Ravi) had taken the doctor’s advice ... Should we say because he has a medical condition, we punish him differently?”
Mr Ravi, 45, had previously been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was suspended in February last year because of the same condition. His practising certificate has not been renewed since.
Mr La’Brooy had argued that psychiatrist Dr Munidasa Winslow had flagged warning signs that Mr Ravi was displaying symptoms of “hypomania” — where one’s energy levels are elevated above normal, and can evolve into mania or depression — before the series of events in February. Dr Winslow had also advised that Mr Ravi be admitted to a hospital for observation.
However, Mr Ravi did not comply, and only checked himself into Mount Elizabeth Hospital on Feb 10 last year, after he made a scene at the Law Society’s premises.
“Even before the charges came up, there was opportunity (for rehabilitation) ... But Mr Ravi turned it down,” said Mr La’Brooy. While acknowledging that Mr Ravi’s mental condition was a “mitigating factor”, Mr La’Brooy stressed it should not “exonerate” him. Mr Thuraisingam argued that Mr Ravi’s condition “significantly reduced his moral responsibility” for his misconduct, and his ability to consciously choose how to act had been “substantially impaired”.
He cited Dr Tommy Tan, an expert called upon by the Law Society, who had likened patients such as Mr Ravi to “a driver in a car that is without brakes”.
“He knows that the car is without brakes but he simply has no control over the car,” Dr Tan had written in a medical report.
It was likely that Mr Ravi did not admit himself to the hospital as he was unaware of the state and severity of the relapse, said Mr Thuraisingam.
But Justice Phang asked if Mr Ravi’s condition was being used as an “excuse”. “(There is a) wider public interest that cannot be ignored,” he added.
CLARIFICATION: In an earlier version of this article, we referred to Mr M Ravi as a "suspended lawyer". Mr Ravi has clarified that he was ordered to stop practising in February last year and that order ceased upon the expiry of his practicing certificate as of March 31, 2015. His application for a practicing certificate has not been granted.
