Since its inception in 2011, the Attorney-General's Cup – the brainchild of former Attorney-General, Professor Walter Woon, SC – has played an instrumental role in introducing law undergraduates to the intricacies of criminal law. The 2019 edition of the competition had a scenario considering the criminal sanctions for the offence of "making atmosphere noxious to health of persons in general". 3rd-Year LL.B. student Marcus Chia Hao Jun reports on the finals held on 29 August 2019.
In a collaboration with the Supreme Court, SMU Law students (under SMU Lexicon) are reporting on selected Court of Appeal judgments, highlighting the significant points, so as to foster greater public awareness of these cases and their implications. The summaries are available on the Supreme Court of Singapore Website, and are reproduced here on SMU Lexicon's website as well.
When a case goes on appeal, parties often try to adduce (or offer) new evidence as part of the appeal. Generally, where the new evidence concerns matters which occurred before the date of the decision in the court below, parties are allowed to offer such evidence only with leave (or permission) from the higher court. This is in the interests of finality in litigation, and also of the fair administration of justice (so as to incentivize parties to advance their entire case at trial, rather than deliberately leave over points solely for the purpose of appeals and thereby obtaining a “second bite at the cherry”).
The 12th edition of SMU’s Howard Hunter Moot attracted over 50 participants. The competition problem was centred on the implications of a character Mia Childs’ social media posts, in light of the new Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (“POFMA”).
In the latest instalment of SMU’s “Law as Calling” series, the Honourable Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon visited SMU School of Law and delivered an inspirational address on law and the public good. Find here the summary of the talk, and the insights CJ Menon shared on finding meaning and purpose in legal practice.
In Yap Chen Hsiang Osborn v Public Prosecutor  SGCA 40, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) clarified that section 47(1) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) (“CDSA”), which essentially makes it an offense to launder proceeds which represents one’s (i.e. the offender’s) benefits from criminal conduct, applies only to primary offenders (someone who launders the benefits of his or her own criminal conduct) and not secondary offenders (someone who does not himself or herself commit the offence from which the proceeds were originally derived, but launders the proceeds of another person’s crime).
In 2018, the battle between Uber and Grab in Singapore was dramatically concluded with Grab announcing the acquisition of Uber's Southeast Asian business. However, the spectacle was far from over, with the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) promptly intervening to investigate the merger. The CCCS eventually found that s 54 of the Competition Act (Cap 50B, 2006 Rev Ed) had been infringed. It then ordered remedies to mitigate the anti-competitive effects, and imposed hefty financial penalties on both parties. This article considers the CCCS's decision and approach, and shows that the CCCS’ response was unfortunately less robust than desired, which spells negative implications for Singapore’s competition regime.