JUDGMENT

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JCA:

[1] The appellants appeal against the decision of the learned High Court judge who had set aside the Disciplinary Boards order which struck out the respondents off the Roll of an Advocate and Solicitor and substituted it with an order that the respondent be suspended from practice as an Advocate and Solicitor for a period.

[2] The appellant and respondent had relied on the following cases: (i) ; [2018] 2 MLJ 265; [2018] 2 CLJ 1; (ii) ; [2008] 7 MLJ 215; [2008] 10 CLJ 101; (iii) ; [2013] 5 MLJ 640; [2013] 7 CLJ 533; [2013] 4 AMR 802; (iv) ; [1936] MLJ 192; (v) Bolton v. Law Society [1994] 2 All ER 486; (vi) ; [2012] 7 CLJ 830; (vii) ; (viii) ; [1998] 3 MLJ 341; [1998] 4 CLJ 878; [1998] 4 AMR 3391; (ix) ; (x) ; [2017] 1 MLJ 770; [2017] 4 CLJ 225; (xi) ; [2017] 1 MLJ 770; [2017] 4 CLJ 225; (xii) ; [2018] 5 MLJ 536; [2017] 10 CLJ 417; [2017] 7 AMR 641; (xiii) ; (xiv) ; [2019] 7 CLJ 223.

[3] Learned counsel for the appellant has summarized the issues for consideration related to sentencing as follows:

"Q-1 it has been determined that an advocate and solicitor is dishonest, and has committed misconduct through misappropriation of clients monies (breach of trust), whether it amounts to misconduct sufficient to merit the advocate and solicitor being struck off the Rolls?

Q-2: whether act of the late repayment of the monies misappropriated by the solicitor a mitigating factor sufficient to excuse the said solicitor from being struck off the Rolls as opposed to a mere suspension;

Q-3: whether the considerations for sentencing in disciplinary proceedings are aimed to protect the public, deter the other practitioners, or limited to punishing the errant solicitor according to his circumstances?"

[4] It must be noted that questions posed to the Court in the style of "Hardtalk" is not the courteous approach to address the bench. The subject matter also relates to sentencing where the Court has a wide discretion based on gravity as well as other established principles.

Brief Facts And Grounds

[5] The brief facts and grounds of the case placed in a rudimentary manner before us is repeated to save courts time and it reads as follows:

"1. The Applicant in this case filed an originating Summon to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Board dated 15 December 2017 pursuant to subsection 103E(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 in which the Disciplinary Board had ordered the Applicant to make restitution to the complainant in the sum of RM58,800.00. It was further ordered that the Applicant be struck off the Roll of the Advocates & Solicitor of High Court of Malaya with effect 21 days from the date of the order.

2. The applicant was retained by one Zainab Binti Hamzah to handle the purchase of a property from Mohamad Bin Ismail at the purchase price of RM58,000.00 and the property was assigned to AmBank (M) Bhd.

3. On 12 April 2011, a Sale and Purchase Agreement was signed by both parties and the full purchase price in the sum of RM58,800.00 has been paid but no receipt of payment was issued by the applicant. Out of this purchase sum, RM4,800.00 was paid to the vendor. The remaining RM54,000.00 was to be used to redeem the property from AmBank (M) Bhd.

4. However, the Applicant had failed to redeem the property and the reasons given by the Applicant are that there were outstanding administrative and maintenance fees owed by the vendor to the developer and balance amount of RM54,000.00 in the Applicants client account was insufficient to redeem the property.

5. As the Applicant failed to execute the sale transaction after the lapsed of 5 years, on 9 August 2016, a letter of complaint was sent to the Advocate & Solicitor Disciplinary Board against the Applicant.

6. After having heard the evidence by the relevant parties, the Disciplinary Committee finds that the Applicant has committed professional misconduct against the Complainant and thereafter, on 15 December 2017 the Disciplinary Board made its decision and grounds of