Abstract:
This note examines two procedural questions flowing from the Court of Three Judges’ recent decision in The Law Society of Singapore v Bay Puay Joo Lilian [2007] SGHC 209. While the decision will almost certainly be remembered for its guidance on the admissibility of evidence obtained by way of entrapment, two further issues arise for consideration: (a) the relationship between ss 94(3)(b) and 97(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed), and (b) the relationship between the expressions “cause of sufficient gravity” and “due cause” as found in s 83 of the same Act.