Three Indian origin trainee lawyers have been named among six, who cheated in their Bar examination and admitted to the misconduct last year, The Straits Times here reported.

They took Part B of their Bar exam in 2020, which was held between November and December that year. The Indian origin trainee lawyers are Monisha Devaraj, Kushal Atul Shah and Sreeraam Ravenderan, along with Chinese origin Matthew Chow Jun Feng and Lionel Wong Choong Yoong.

The sixth student, Lynn Kuek Yi Ting, had initially denied cheating but her explanation was rejected, according to the daily report.

The five said their admission was forthright and made early without requesting the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) first present its allegations.

They also cooperated with SILE during the five-month-long disciplinary process.

Expressing deep remorse and repentance, they said they were aware of the embarrassment and unfavourable consequences that would follow with their naming.

On Wednesday, Justice Choo Han Teck rescinded his earlier orders to redact their names and seal the court files to prevent third parties from viewing them.

SILE had earlier said that the exam was conducted remotely during a challenging time when holding a physical one was not viable.

It added that there were adequate safeguards in place but a number of candidates were found to have cheated. On Wednesday, six trainee lawyers were named for cheating in the Bar exams.

Meanwhile, Singapore Law Society president Adrian Tan hit out at those who criticised the professional body for "turning a blind eye" to exam cheating, saying these commentators are "misguided".

In a message published in Law Gazette on Thursday, Tan said the case involving the trainee lawyers who cheated in the Bar exams showed that "there are commentators who are quick to condemn lawyers". "They do so without understanding the background of events or waiting for matters to be resolved. They are in a rush to judge us, practising lawyers, and to urge us to reflect on our own ethics," the Channel News Asia quoted Tan as saying.

Tan stressed that the people who cheated have not been admitted to the Bar, which means they are not members of the Law Society, and are not lawyers.

Addressing commentators who criticised the Law Society for "somehow turning a blind eye to cheating", Tan said: "These commentators are misguided. It is because these six persons cheated that the Law Society did not agree to admit them as advocates and solicitors."

He also clarified the role of the Law Society, saying the exams are neither set by it nor does it have any power to punish the six involved as they are not members.

Singapore court stays execution of Indian origin man

A court here stayed the execution of an Indian origin man convicted for drug trafficking, pending the conclusion of a civil application that he and other death row inmates filed against the Attorney General's Chambers.

The court decision came on Thursday, a day after an Indian origin man was hanged for drug trafficking at the Changi Prison. Datchinamurthy Kataiah (36) was scheduled to be hanged on Friday, The Straits Times reported.

Kataiah and 12 other death row convicts have filed a civil application against the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC), seeking declarations and damages over the disclosure of their private letters.

The hearing in the case is fixed for May 20, according to the daily report.

Datchinamurthy represented himself in the High Court. Justices Andrew Phang, Judith Prakash and Belinda Ang will issue detailed grounds of the decision at a later date, according to the report.

Datchinamurthy was convicted in April 2015 and given death penalty. His appeal against the verdict was dismissed in February 2016.

In January 2020, Datchinamurthy and fellow inmate Gobi Avedian sought to stay their execution, pending investigations into allegations that "unlawful" methods were being used in judicial execution.

In April that year, Datchinamurthy complained to the court that his and Gobi's private letters were being "illegally copied and forwarded by prison" to the AGC. In August, the Court of Appeal dismissed the duo's case.

The court also ruled that prison officials are not allowed to forward copies of inmates' documents to the AGC without the prisoners' consent or a court order.

However, the court accepted that it was an oversight in this case.

In July 2021, Datchinamurthy and 12 other inmates who had their letters forwarded filed a civil application against the AGC.

They wanted the court to declare that the AGC and the Singapore Prisons Service had acted unlawfully, said The Straits Times report.

They also sought damages for the breach of confidence and nominal damages for copyright infringement.

This application was withdrawn three months later and the inmates' then lawyer, M Ravi, was ordered to bear legal costs of SGD10,000.

In February this year, the 13 inmates filed a fresh application, seeking largely identical declarations and damages.

In arguing against a stay, Deputy Senior State Counsel Yang Ziliang said in written submissions that the inmates' application for declarations and damages is not a court proceeding that relates to the validity of Datchinamurthy's conviction or sentence. According to the newspaper report, Yang had told the court that Datchinamurthy's contention, which he would apply to set aside his conviction and sentence if he succeeds in the civil application, was contrived.

PTI