Being reformed is not good enough to re-admit struck-off lawyer Narinder Singh Kang (picture) to the bar, a Court of Three Judges has ruled.

Equally important is whether public confidence in the profession would be shaken if he was allowed to become a lawyer again, said the judges in deciding why they had refused to reinstate the ex-police officer-turned-lawyer.

But Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang, who wrote the written grounds on behalf of the court, made clear that no lawyer who is struck off will be prevented from ever coming back except in the most exceptional circumstances.

He suggested in the judgement published on Friday that Mr Singh reapply in five years time but stressed that re-entry would not be a foregone conclusion.

Legal observers said the judgement is significant in providing guidelines on how the court will view future applications from other struck-off lawyers seeking reinstatement.

Mr Singh became a lawyer in 1975 and was struck off the rolls 10 years ago following his conviction for seeking a bribe for a confession.

In May 1995, he represented Hartej Singh, who was on death row for drug trafficking, with Sarjit Singh, who had a different lawyer.

On the eve of the execution, the two lawyers visited the men at the request of Sarjit's family, who hoped Hartej could save Sarjit from the gallows.

Hartej signed a confession exonerating Sarjit.

At the prison gate, Mr Singh told Sarjit's son that Hartej had left instructions not to hand over the confession unless $100,000 was paid to his family. The two men were eventually hanged. Sarjit's lawyer later reported the matter to the Law Society.

Mr Singh was initially jailed for five months for corruption. However, the sentence was later increased to one year by then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How.

His lawyer, Mr Peter Cuthbert Low, had argued that in the almost 10 years since, Mr Singh had led an unblemished life. He also produced testimonials - four from senior lawyers - in support of the reinstatement.

In the case heard last July, the Attorney-General had objected to Mr Singh's application while the Law Society declined to take a position.

The court stressed the "seriousness of the offence which led to Mr Singh being struck off the roll in the first place."
Said Judge of Appeal Phang in the 17-page judgement: "Put simply, would the restoration of the applicant concerned diminish public confidence in the general reputation and standing of the legal profession?

"A negative answer in our view would be necessary, before the applicant can be restored to the roll."