Zulkefli Makinudin FCJ:

Background

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur in dismissing the appellant's application to be restored to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors pursuant to s. 107 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("LPA"). The relevant background facts of the case are as follows:

1. On 25 August 1989 the appellant was admitted as an advocate and solicitor to the High Court of Malaya.

2. On 1 December 1989 the appellant joined the Legal and Judicial Service and was appointed as a Magistrate at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate's Court.

3. The appellant was charged on 28 November 1992 in the Sessions Court for soliciting ("the 1st charge") and for accepting ("the 2nd charge") corrupt money under s. 3(a)(i) and s. 4(a), Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 ("PCA").

4. On 8 March 1993, the Sessions Court discharged and acquitted the appellant of both charges without calling for the defence.

5. The prosecution appealed to the High Court, which affirmed the acquittal and discharge of the appellant in respect of the 1st Charge under s. 3(a)(i), but allowed the prosecution's appeal in respect of the 2nd charge under s. 4(a), PCA, and ordered the appellant to enter his defence in respect thereof ("the 1st decision of the High Court").

6. The case was remitted back to the same Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Judge, who, after hearing the appellant's defence, again acquitted and discharged the appellant of the 2nd charge. The prosecution again appealed to the High Court against the acquittal and discharge of the 2nd charge.

7. On 25 April 1994, the High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal against the 2nd charge, set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant. He was sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment and a fine of RM5,000 in default twelve (12) months imprisonment ("the 2nd decision of the High Court").

8. The appellant thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court against the 2nd decision of the High Court.

9. On 21 March 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed his conviction and sentence to three (3) years imprisonment but set aside the fine of RM5,000 in default 12 months imprisonment.

10. The appellant consequently served his imprisonment term in Kajang prison from 21 March 1997 till 20 March 1999.

11. The appellant was released from the Kajang prison on 20 March 1999 and subsequent to his release had applied for his Annual Practising Certificate ("Practising Certificate") from the Bar Council. The Bar Council granted the appellant the Practising Certificate for the year 1999 but without prejudice to their right to lodge a complaint with the disciplinary board.

12. On 29 June 1999, the Bar Council lodged a complaint against the appellant with the disciplinary board.

13. From 12 June 1999 till 7 June 2002 the appellant practiced law at Messrs. Ananthan & Partners, Malacca, subject to the disciplinary enquiry by the Bar Council.

14. Later, an enquiry was held by the disciplinary committee and on 23 March 2002 the disciplinary committee recommended to the disciplinary board that the appellant be suspended from practice for a period of six (6) months.

15. Despite the recommendation by the disciplinary committee that the appellant be suspended for six months in the exercise of the powers conferred by s. 103D(3) of LPA, the disciplinary board decided to enhance the punishment and ordered that the appellant be struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the High Court of Malaya on 12 June 2002.

16. On 19 June 2002 the appellant appealed to the High Court against the disciplinary board's decision.

17. On 24 March 2003, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal with costs.

18. Being dissatisfied with the High Court's decision dated 24 March 2003, the appellant appealed against the whole decision to the Federal Court. On 30 October 2003 the Federal Court dismissed the appellants' appeal with no order as to costs.

19. On 5 July 2005