S'pore court clears PAP MP Christopher de Souza of misconduct as lawyer

Christopher de Souza's hearing was held through Zoom on Jul. 31, 2023.

The court's physical public gallery was filled with members from the public and media.

The Court of Three Judges comprising Justices Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Woo Bih Li, and Kannan Ramesh heard his case.

Delivering the decision on behalf of the court, Justice Belinda Ang said they disagreed with the Disciplinary Tribunal.

Ang said the tribunal had erred in its judgement as it had regarded Souza's intention as irrelevant, but "intention was a necessary ingredient of the charge".

Ang said it was clear to the Court of Three Judges that de Souza did not intend to suppress evidence, even in the face of a "intransigent client".

As such, the Court of Three Judges dismissed de Souza's charge.

The full grounds of decision will be published at a later date.

What the disciplinary tribunal found

de Souza acted for Amber Compounding Pharmacy and Amber Laboratories in a civil suit against their ex-employee.

Before he took over the case on Dec. 14, 2018, Amber was granted a court search order on Apr. 13, 2018, to search for documents on the condition that it give an undertaking not to use the seized documents without a further court order.

However, after seizing 116,298 documents, Amber used 10 documents to file reports with the police, the Ministry of Manpower and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau between Jul. 31 and Oct. 22 in 2018.

He was made aware of the reports, but he proceeded to assist an Amber representative in filing an affidavit on Jan. 29, 2019 but did not reveal the breaches.

de Souza's actions came to light after a complaint was filed with the Law Society.

The Law Society subsequently asked the Chief Justice to convene a disciplinary tribunal, which found de Souza guilty of one charge of professional misconduct.

The disciplinary tribunal found de Souza to be suppressing evidence for his client as even though he claimed that he tried to persuade his client to make a full disclosure, the affidavit that he prepared for Amber ultimately did not disclose the breaches.

Exchanges during the hearing

The Law Society of Singapore requested the Court of Three Judges to hand down a four-year suspension to Christopher de Souza for his professional misconduct case.

Madan Assomull, who represented the Law Society of Singapore, argued that de Souza did not exhibit the reports that Amber had made when drafting the Jan. 29, 2019 affidavit and that he did not do so intentionally.

On the point of intention, Assomull said: "Why pussyfoot with the whole issue of undertaking? Was there an issue to do so?"

He said lawyers are not merely convenient mouthpieces for clients.

Assomull said if de Souza had exhibited the reports in the Jan. 29, 2019 affidavit, it would then be clear that Amber had breached its search order by using seized documents to lodge criminal reports to the authorities.

de Souza’s lawyer Tan Chee Meng argued otherwise.

One of the examples that Tan referred to was a paragraph in Amber's Jan. 29, 2019 affidavit where de Souza had mentioned that the client intended to use the documents.

However, Amber had used the documents to file reports by then.

Tan acknowledged that the affidavit could have been drafted better and clearer.

However, he argued that a lack of clarity in the affidavit's "imprecise language" does not show de Souza's intention to suppress evidence, nor a dishonest intent.

He pulled up the internal emails that de Souza exchanged with his team for the period up to Jan. 23, 2019, where de Souza raised a concern regarding an Amber representative's amendments as it gave off an incorrect impression flagged, and further argued that de Souza never harboured an intention to be dishonest.

Tan: de Souza "extremely pleased: after being vindicated

In response to Mothership's, de Souza's lawyer Tan said:

"Mr de Souza is naturally extremely pleased that he has been vindicated after three years. The allegations against him for suppression of evidence, as well as the other charges, were totally unfounded.

He has at all times acted with the utmost integrity, advising the client from the earliest opportunity to seek permission from the court to rectify its earlier breaches of the undertakings. Mr de Souza has always been mindful of his obligations as an officer of the court.

The Court of 3 Judges held that Mr de Souza did not intend to suppress Amber’s breaches, and that Mr de Souza stuck to his intention to disclose the breaches of undertakings despite an intransigent client.

Mr de Souza would like to thank his colleagues at Lee & Lee, friends, and constituents for their unstinting support and encouragement during this time."