lss_dt_reports_version: 14

This data as json

_id	_item	_version	_commit	title	content	pdf-link	pdf-content	timestamp	url	unique_id	_item_full_hash
14	14	1	1049	In the Matter of Gabriel Peter (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Gabriel Peter (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor These proceedings arose out of a complaint made against the Respondent by one Victor Lim in relation to events that occurred on 26 March 2014 that resulted in Victor Lim signing a Declaration of Trust (DOT). The DOT was ultimately set aside by the High Court after Victor Lim brought an action for the same. Following the findings or remarks of the High Court in BOK v BOL [2017] SGHC 316 (BOK v BOL), Victor Lim lodged a complaint against the Respondent. In relation to the complaint, the Chief Justice empanelled a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) presided by Mr Roderick E Martin SC and Mr Chan Hock Keng as DT member. Charges Three main charges were preferred against the Respondent: First Charge For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA), and a breach of Rule 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (PCR), in which the Respondent had aided the misrepresentation of his daughter, Calista Marella Peter, to her then husband, Victor Lim, in that the Deed of Trust would only take effect upon his death, until which time he was free to deal with his assets, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Victor Lim or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court. Second Charge For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA, and a breach of Rule 53A of the PCR, in which the Respondent had exerted undue influence upon Victor Lim or aided Calista Marella Peter to exert undue influence upon Victor Lim, thereby inducing Victor Lim into signing the Deed of Trust, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Victor Lim or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court. Third Charge For conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the LPA, and a breach of Rule 53A of the PCR, in which the Respondent had failed, refused and/or neglected to advise Victor Lim to seek independent legal advice in circumstances where he was or ought to have been aware of his daughter’s misrepresentation as to the legal effect of the Deed of Trust and of the vulnerability and impairment of Victor Lim’s mental state at the material time when he was suffering from acute grief due to his mother’s death, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Victor Lim or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to his position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court. Findings and Determination of the DT The DT noted that for the three charges against the Respondent to be made out, it was incumbent on the Law Society to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent had followed Calista Marella Peter back into her bedroom. This resulted in a face-off between what Victor Lim said had occurred, i.e. that the Respondent entered the bedroom, and what the Respondent said had occurred, i.e. that the Respondent did not enter the bedroom. This face-off called into operation the test propounded in paragraphs 87 to 89 of Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter [2020] 1 SLR 486 (PP v GCK) in which the Court of Appeal required “unusually convincing” circumstances in order to rely on a sole eyewitness’ testimony in convicting an accused. The DT found that Victor Lim’s account of the events, including the Respondent having entered the bedroom, did not satisfy the “unusually convincing” standard due to a number of internal and external inconsistencies in Victor Lim’s testimony as well as his demeanour during cross-examination. Determination of the DT The DT determined that all three charges were not made out and, pursuant to section 93(1)(a) of the LPA, that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against the Respondent existed under section 83 of the LPA. Council subsequently adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and decided pursuant to section 94(2) of the Act that no further action be taken against the Respondent. To access the full report, click here.	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/DT-law_gazette.pdf	DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL DT/12/2020 In the Matter of Gabriel Peter An Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court And In the Matter of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) ___________________________________________________________________ REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ President: Mr Roderick E Martin SC Advocate & Solicitor: Mr Chan Hock Keng Mr Wee Heng Yi Adrian, Mr Darius Lee, Ms Lynette Chang (Characterist LLP) for the Law Society Mr Gabriel Peter, Ms Nicolette Tan, Ms Perveen Kaur (Gabriel Law Corporation) for the Respondent Dated this 20th day of February 2022 2 I. BACKGROUND FACTS 1. The facts leading to the complaint Peter are narrated at [1] to [6 DT 2 and DT 2A/2020 DT 2A . DT 2 arises from a complaint by the Attorney General against Calista Peter Calista lodged by arises from a similar complaint being Victor -in- law. This Report deals with the complaint against Peter in DT 12/2020. 2. The complaint against Peter was lodged by Victor in relation to events that occurred on 26 March 2014 that resulted in Victor signing a Declaration of Trust DOT 3. The DOT was ultimately set aside by the High Court after Victor brought an action to court for the same. Following the findings or remarks of the High Court from [59] to [65] in BOK v BOL [2017] SGHC 316 BOK v BOL , Victor lodged his complaint against Peter resulting in DT 12. II. THE CHARGES IN DT 12 4. The same Tribunal in DT 2 and 2A was appointed to hear the complaint against Peter in DT 12. In DT 12, the following charges were preferred against Peter, which in their amended form reads as follows: 3 FIRST CHARGE You, Gabriel Peter, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that on or about 26 March 2014, you: aided the misrepresentation of your daughter, Calista Marella Peter, to her then husband, Lim Wei De Victor, that the Deed of Trust would only take effect upon his death, until which time he was free to deal with his assets, which were acts that took unfair advantage of Lim Wei De Victor or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to your position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court, and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed), and such breach amounts to conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). (emphasis added in bold and underline) SECOND CHARGE You, Gabriel Peter, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that on or about 26 March 2014, you: exerted undue influence upon Lim Wei De Victor or aided Calista Marella Peter to exert undue influence upon Lim Wei De Victor, thereby inducing the said Lim Wei De Victor into signing the Deed of Trust; 4 which were acts that took unfair advantage of Lim Wei De Victor or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to your position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court, and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed), and such breach amounts to conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). (emphasis added in bold and underline) THIRD CHARGE You, Gabriel Peter, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that on or about 26 March 2014, you: failed, refused and/or neglected to advise Lim Wei De Victor to seek independent legal advice in circumstances where misrepresentation as to the legal effect of the Deed of Trust and of the vulnerability and impairment of the said Lim Wei at the material time when he was which were acts that took unfair advantage of Lim Wei De Victor or was fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to your position as an advocate and solicitor or officer of the Court, and you are thereby guilty of a breach of Rule 53A of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed), and such breach amounts to conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 5 (emphasis added in bold and underline) III. THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON 26 MARCH 2014 5. As far as it relates to the complaint against Peter, account of the events on 26 March 2014 are that while Victor and Calista were arguing in 1, Peter came home bedroom whilst staying in from work and Calista went to Peter in his bedroom to show him the DOT.2 Victor overheard Calista complaining to Peter that Victor refused to sign the DOT and DOT.3 Victor asked Peter if he would do the same if Peter were in his shoes and Peter replied yes.4 Victor understood this to mean that the DOT was a standard, normal document which is commonly executed.5 6. In the presence of Peter, Calista stated that the DOT son S S 6 Calista stated that Victor would in the meantime be free to deal with all of his assets as he deemed fit.7 Peter also stated that he himself did not own anything (which Victor understood to mean immovable properties) and that everything Peter had 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 belonged to his wife and children.8 Victor felt intimidated by Peter (being his fatherin-law and senior lawyer)9 and pressured by Calista to sign the DOT, which he did.10 7. in the evening, playing with his grandson with his wife in their bedroom.11 Calista entered her parents bedroom to tell them that Victor was leaving the house to stay elsewhere.12 Peter recalled that there had been an issue between Victor and the couple to resolve the issue.13 and did not enter Calista 8. bedroom.14 The linchpin of the three Charges against Peter was that he had followed Calista back to her bedroom and it was there that the events giving rise to the three Charges took place. and no other date. A fortiori, if the Law Society failed to prove that Peter did follow Calista back to her bedroom, the three Charges would fail. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DT 12 Transcripts 30 September 2021, page 86 line 18 to page 87 line 29 7 IV. 9. hear and investigate the matter Section 89(1) of the Legal Profession Act emphasis added LPA , clarify doubts arising from the evidence given. For example, in paragraph [40] of AEIC, he affirmed the following: fter I refused to sign the Declaration of Trust Calista became agitated and started raising her voice. We argued. During the course of our argument, Calista told me that the Declaration of Trust was just a it was not meant to take effect until my death, and that that effect) until then. Calista said that the Declaration of Trust was just of Trust, in the event of my death, all my assets would be left to [S] and until then, I was free to deal with my money and assets as I deemed fit. Calista was only interested and insistent in getting me to sign the Declaration of Trust. (emphasis added in bold and underline) 10. Calista said it was not meant to take effect until [his] death gave rise to a doubt as to whether Calista did in fact represent to him that in law, the DOT was to take effect only upon his death. When someone describes a 8 it was not meant to of the document in law was otherwise. Obviously because while the effect of a document in law may be one thing, the understanding between parties as to how and when the document is be used is another. Otherwise, it makes no sense (on it was not meant to take effect until [his] death 11. The Tribunal was therefore compelled to clarify this doubt with Victor during his cross- V. hear and investigate the matter UNUSUALLY CONVINCING STANDARD 12. For the three charges against Peter to be made out, it was incumbent on the Law Society to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter followed Calista back into her bedroom. 13. This resulted in a face-off between what Victor said had occurred (Peter entered the bedroom) and what Peter said had occurred (he did not enter the bedroom) as neither the Law Society or Peter had called Calista as a witness in DT 12. 14. This face-off called into operation the test propounded in Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter [2020] 1 SLR 486 PP v GCK in which the Court of Appeal unusually convincing in convicting an accused, at [87] to [89]: 9 87 We agree with the parties that standard is the only standard to be uncorroborated testimony forms the sole basis for a conviction 88 case [is] proven beyond reasonable doubt, solely on the basis of the Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2016] 5 SLR 636 at [28], this court considered that (citing Mohammed Liton at [39]): available facts and circumstances, contains that ring of truth which leaves the court satisfied that no reasonable doubt exists in demeanour, and the internal and external consistencies of the 89 nothing to do with the status of the witness concerned (namely, whether he or she is an alleged victim or an eyewitness), and Prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt XP ([72] supra) at [31]. In the absence of any other corroborative evidence, the testimony of a witness, whether an eyewitness or an 10 entire case will rest. Such evidence can sustain a conviction only if it is arising from the lack of corroboration and the fact that such evidence will typically be controverted by that of the accused person. (emphasis added in bold and underline) 15. unusually convincing Disciplinary Tribunals (see, The Law Society of Singapore v Lim Kien Thye [2002] SGDSC 6 at [12]), and the Tribunal sees fit to apply it in this circumstance. 16. The Tribunal finds entered the bedroom, unusually convincing for a number of reasons. Internal and external inconsistencies 17. as beset with internal inconsistencies. The most glaring of which was his allegation that Calista had misrepresented to him when the DOT took effect in law. Upon questioning by the Tribunal, Victor admitted that there was no such misrepresentation as to when the DOT took effect in law, but only what and when the DOT was meant or intended to be used for: DT 12 Transcripts 28 September 2021, page 84 line 13 to page 85 line 9 the High Court what you say here---no, to be fair to 11 misrepresentation about the effect of the DOT was? So that we are fair to you. A I disagree. Q No, no. What are you saying then? President: What are you saying? Yes. President: No. No, no. Okay. Let me give you two scenarios so you can understand, right? One is a misrepresentation that this DOT would only take effect on your death, correct? Advocate: As a matter of law. President: As a matter of law. The other [interpretation] is I made no document until you die Witness: Your Honour, CMP represented the second one. President: The second one. Okay. Respondent: Okay. President: Witness: Yes. President: you die. Alright. In law, as my colleague said. You see? So it was really what they call - security. Security. Alright. That you behave yourself. Alright. And you come back, you start a family, you know? I think that is what you agree she meant, yes? Witness: Yes, Your Honour. (emphasis added in bold and underline) DT 12 Transcripts 28 September 2021, page 85 line 25 to page 86 line 18 12 Q So Mr Lim, I put it---sorry, I suggest to you that Callista did not make a misrepresentation to you about the legal effect of the DOT, taking---in that it took effect legally upon your death. Do you agree? t fact, law. A I disagree. Advocate: No, you said you were not willing to sign it, right--Witness: Yes, Your Honour. Advocate: --- Witness: Yes. Advocate: And it was because she said that look, this is---as you say in Witness: Yes. Advocate: --Witness: Yes. Advocate: ---and---so that seems to be more about intention rather than --Or in And maybe then can---one can understand why is it you go and do whatever you want to do with the property. Witness: Your Honour, it was the second one. (emphasis added in bold and underline) DT 12 Transcripts 28 September 2021, page 87 line 4 to 8 13 Callista did not tell you, right, that this document which you signed would take effect in law only upon your death. Did she make that representation? Witness: Your Honour--- President: Yes. Witness: ---but she--President: So she made what representation? She made the representation that this is only to avoid probate and all that other things, and in case you give your property away to a Chinese [whore]15, I would [leave] this in the ---that really is the --Witness: It is the second point --- President: Yes, the second, yes. Alright, alright. Witness: ---the kind to think about too much. Respondent: Yes. Your Honour, it saves a lot of (emphasis added in bold and underline) 18. In fact, this admission by Victor was not just an internal inconsistency as to his account of the events, but it shows that he was not truthful about misrepresentation altogether. Further, if there was no misrepresentation by Calista, why would there be a need for Peter to follow Calista back to her bedroom and persuade Victor? This in and of itself raised a reasonable doubt as to whether 15 Chinese [whore] [S] would end up getting 14 Peter did in fact follow Calista back to her bedroom. Without Peter doing so, all three Charges against Peter fail. 19. As for the First and Third Charges in particular, they fail also because they are specifically predicated on Calista having allegedly misrepresented when the DOT took effect in law. The First Charge against Peter is for aiding Calista in her alleged misrepresentation, and the Third Charge is in failing to advise Victor to seek misrepresentation. Both predicated on the alleged misrepresentation. 20. Counsel for the Law Society attempted to remedy this clear admission in reexamination by asking Victor what he understood when he signed the DOT: DT 12 Transcript 29 September 2021 page 7 lines 10 to 13 On the evening of the 26th of March 2014 when you signed the DOT, as far as you understood at that time, when would the DOT take effect? A After CMP made her statements, I was led to believe that would 21. Read plainly, this answer by Victor in re-examination admission in cross-examination that the DOT was not meant to be used until given that that was what Calista had told him as part of a family arrangement. 15 22. -examination were contradicting his answers in cross- credibility would be put in further doubt as there would be no way to reconcile his two contradictory accounts. inconsistency. 23. also suffered the internal inconsistency between what he says he understood the DOT to mean at two different portions of his AEIC. 24. First, at [43] of his AEIC, Victor alleges that when he asked Peter whether he would alleges that Peter told him that he himself did not own anything and that everything he had belonged to his wife and children. Victor says he understood this to mean that Peter did not own any property. Taking these two statements together, Victor must have understood that signing the DOT would be akin to putting himself in of his own. Victor said as much in [9] of his complaint to the Law Society dated 31 May 201916: When I asked Peter Gabriel, whom I knew and respect to be a senior lawyer, whether he would sign the DOT if he was in my shoes, Peter Gabriel own anything and that everything belonged to his wife and children. 25. Yet later at [55] of his AEIC, Victor says that he honestly believed that under the DOT, all of his assets would be to left to S only when he died, and he would 16 16 continue to own and be free to deal with his assets as he deemed fit without any reference to S. This was clearly not the position that Victor understood Peter to be in. Obviously because Peter was still alive and yet his wife and children owned the property. how could Peter have aided any misrepresentation as to when the DOT took effect in law? 26. This was picked up by Peter and the Tribunal in the cross-examination of Victor: DT 12 Transcripts 28 September 2021, page 74 line 1 to page 72 line 2 Q Now, I would like you to---just to finish off, just one question on paragraph Paragraph 9. So, Mr Lim, what you had done in this paragraph 9 is effectively try to summarise the various points you have raised in your affidavit, and your that I was---if I was in your shoes, I would do it and that everything I own from those words, I didn't say it, but all you gathered from those words is that you were being unreasonable for not signing the DOT, correct? A I'm not just unreasonable but yah. Q I said, after reading--- 17 those words was that you were being unreasonable for not signing the DOT. A Q And nowhere did you get that impression that you had stated earlier that somehow I had given you the impression that by these words I could President: I have difficulty, Mr Lim, with paragraph 9. Because if you read the first 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6 lines, right, basically your complaint there is that take effect upon death, correct? And if you objectively look at the lines after that: was a standard document. When I asked Peter Gabriel, whom I knew and respect to be a senior lawyer, whether he would sign the --and this is where he may be said to have corrected Calista--at one point, Peter Gabriel even remarked that he did not own did the same. I don't own anything. It belongs to my But by making that remark, and you are a intelligent man, you come to the conclusion whatever Calista said was not really true because look at Peter Gabriel, he owns nothing. And he is saying so. So, I'm sharing with you and reading his paragraph 9, it is not as clear-cut as you think it is, yes? So Mr Peter, you want to carry on this line? 18 ---his defence is an all-orBut even assuming he did, this paragraph 9 has an inherent inconsistency. (emphasis added in bold and underline) 27. There was neither a correction by Victor nor a re-examination by the Law Society in this regard. 28. T in his AEIC at [43], he standard document However, Victor resiled from this point during cross-examination and admitted to the Tribunal that the description of the DOT came from himself and not Peter: DT 12 Transcripts 27 September 2021, page 59 line 24 to page 60 line 17 Q this event of which you have produced even quotations purportedly about events that transpired. So try to remember, Mr Lim. Answer the question. What clarification did you seek from me or my daughter on the 26th about this trust deed? A To you specifically, I asked whether this was a standard document, to which you said it is. I asked for illustrations, you told me that this was something that was acceptable to you and that also you were not 19 holding any assets under your name, and that most if not all your assets were held by your wife and your children. Q Can you point out in your affidavit you have said that you asked me whether it was a standard document? Can you point out in your affidavit where you said you asked me whether it was a standard document and that I replied to you? A Paragraph 43. Q I can read that. Where is it that you say that you had asked me and I replied you? A It is not stated explicitly inside that paragraph. DT 12 Transcripts 27 September 2021, page 69 line 1 to page 70 line 6 Q Now, coming back to you---what you said this morning. You said that you had asked me whether it was a standard document and that I replied to you that it was. So can you tell the Tribunal what is it that you meant ... A Your Honour, I was coming from a perspective of a layperson where I was not familiar with all these documents. I was asking him as a very senior figure in legal matters whether this is commonly executed, whether this would have any detrimental effects to myself and whether there were any significant ramifications that I was unaware of. So what- 20 -was thinking about. President: So the provenance of this--Advocate: Phrase. President: ---phras was whose? Witness: I asked. I asked PG about it. President: mouth? Witness: Yes. your mouth, did you communicate to me at any point as to what you a detrimental effect on you and whether---what significant ramifications were there, did you ask these questions of me? Yes or no? A I did not. (emphasis added in bold and underline) 29. standard document he says in his AEIC. In his AEIC, it comes across as though Peter was the one who of his own initiative, standard document If that were the case, it would be easy to discern the inducement by Peter. But if the truth was that Victor standard document was merely 21 responding to it, where is the inducement? As Victor admitted, he did not further ask questions about whether it was commonly executed, whether there was a yes from Peter could not encapsulate all of those concerns. 30. The Tribunal also found was externally inconsistent with the objective evidence. Victor says in his AEIC (at [42]) that while he was in bedroom, he could hear Calista and very clearly as the bedroom door was open. The floor plan of the house and the two bedrooms was exhibited to the Tribunal, and it was clear that the distance between the two bedrooms was approximately 7.5 metres diagonally across (with walls in between). This is assuming that Peter and Calista were standing at the doorway of one room and Victor was listening in from the other. Even then, it would be difficult to accept that at that distance, Victor could hear the conversation very clearly. Law Society. 31. That said, the Tribunal recognises that nothing turns on this in that no allegations are being raised in relation to what was said between Calista and Peter while they The Tribunal, however, takes this to be an external satisfying the standard unusually convincing. 32. Given these internal and external inconsistencies, it could not be said that evidence unusually convincing 22 Demeanour of the witness 33. -examination in DT 12 by Peter, his former father-in-law, was also telling. During the crossexamination, Victor turned away from Peter with his back facing him and faced the Tribunal with his eyes shut most of the time. The Tribunal can only surmise that he felt some sort of shame or remorse and was uncomfortable facing his former father-in-law. be unusually convincing ring of truth in PP v GCK. 34. In any event unusually convincing evidence does not place a burden on the accused to call corroborative eye-witness discharge their burden before there is a shift to the accused (see, PP v GCK at [140]). The Tribunal therefore could not agree with Mr Adrian Wee, Counsel for the Law Society, in his submission that Calista ought to have been called by Peter. 35. unusually convincing given the internal and external inconsistencies of his evidence, as well as his demeanour. There Covert recordings unusually convincing 23 36. For completeness, the Tribunal considered the reliance on the covert recording by Victor of his conversation with Calista and her Mother at [64] of BOK v BOL: bedroom on the evening of 26 March 2014 comes from the transcript of the confrontation of 12 February 2015. During the confrontation, the She is know why you keep saying someone force you. How can any of us to read the DOT. Indeed, she appeared to accept, by her use of the . 37. , however, the covert recordings were unsafe to rely on given that Victor had sole control of what was being recorded and was directing the conversation to suit his purposes. Indeed, the transcript of the covert recording makes it clear that Victor was the one who prompted the mention of alleged involvement: [Calista]: Victor, you have already signed it. I d to force you? [Victor]: You even got your dad to read through it and to force me to sign it. 24 [Calista]: one force you. How can any of us force you? [Victor]: You just told me to get lost, and you a[Calista]: 38. This was the same concern expressed by the court in Re A (a child) (Hague Convention: wrongful retention) [2021] EWHC 1204 (Fam), in which the Court gave very little weight to covert recordings made by a father of his conversation with his child. The Court held: recordings as evidence at the hearing. I did so because they had been made covertly and the father had sole control over what was recorded and could have steered recorded conversations with his child to suit his purposes. Hence, the evidence would be of very little weight. 39. Notwithstanding the above, even if the Tribunal were to place the utmost weight on what Calista said in this covert recording, it cannot prove that Peter was in the room. Giving the words their natural meaning, all she is saying is that no one in her family could have forced Victor to sign the DOT. It cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter 40. In view of the above, all three charges against Peter are not made out on the evidence. Further, as far as the First and Third Charges are concerned, as stated above at [19], Victor has admitted that there was no misrepresentation by Calista as regards when the DOT was to take effect in law. The Third Charge also fails to 25 satisfy the conjunctive requirement that Peter was aware that Victor was suffering from vulnerability and impairment of his mental state, for the reasons stated in DT 2 and 2A at [30] to [39]. VI. CONCLUSION 41. In view of the findings in [40] above, the Tribunal determines pursuant to Section 93(1)(a) of the LPA that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against Peter exists under Section 83 of the LPA. Dated this the 20th day of February 2022. _________________________________________ Mr Roderick E Martin SC President _________________________________________ Mr Chan Hock Keng Member	2022-04-08T04:00:27+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-may-2022/	In the Matter of Gabriel Peter (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-may-2022/	3ef69ea966bbde7e693b21bc3d2ab11dd5d67292

Links from other tables

7 rows from item_version in lss_dt_reports_changed