On 6th February 2020, the SMU Centre for AI & Data Governance and SGInnovate hosted a panel discussion on the ‘Challenges of employing AI in the healthcare sector’. The 90-minute panel was chaired by Miss Sunita Kannan - Data, AI Advisory and Responsible AI expert. The other panelists included Professor Dov Greenbaum (Director of the Zvi Meitar Institute for Legal Implications of Emerging Technologies, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya Israel), Dr Tan Jit Seng (Founder and Director of Lotus Eldercare and Vice President of the Asia Pacific Assistive Robotics Association) and Mr. Julien Willeme (Legal Director for Medtronic, Asia-Pacific). Arina Rashid and Jill Phua report on the discussion in this event report.
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.
Singapore Shooting Association and others v Singapore Rifle Association  SGCA 83 was the latest instalment in a series of cases about a long-running dispute between Singapore Shooting Association (“SSA”) and Singapore Rifle Association (“SRA”). This decision by the Court of Appeal, addressed issues of contractual indemnities, disproportionate litigation and the tort of unlawful means conspiracy.
In cases involving medical negligence, lawyers for both parties often use, as evidence, voluminous amounts of scientific and statistical evidence. However, parties may incorrectly confuse what the evidence shows, with what is required by the legal standard of proof. In Armstrong, Carol Ann v Quest Laboratories Pte Ltd  SGCA 75, the Court of Appeal clarified the proper approach in using statistical evidence to prove negligence
The Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, which introduced new regulation relating to fraudulent sex, came into effect on 1 January 2020. These amendments are meant to ensure that the law keeps pace with recent developments on sexual consent, and provide some clarity in that respect. The question is: are they enough? In a thought-provoking seminar, Associate Professor Chen Jianlin of the Melbourne Law School posits that these amendments in the Penal Code were an accidental success.
Section 376 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”) sets out the offences of sexual assault by penetration, including those through: digital-vaginal penetration; digital-anal penetration; and fellatio. The case of Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor  2 SLR 1015 (“Pram Nair”) established a sentencing framework for cases of sexual assault through digital-vaginal penetration. However, it left open the following questions: (a) whether the Pram Nair framework should apply to other forms of sexual assault by penetration, and (b) whether there was a hierarchy of severity, for the various permutations of “sexual assault by penetration” under section 376 of the PC. The Court of Appeal answered these questions in BPH v Public Prosecutor.
Contractors may still be liable for latent defects found years after completion, as they are by definition defects which are not readily apparent or discoverable. However, what if the defect was the fault of a supplier or subcontractor? This article will focus on a contractor’s liability in negligence and the defences he can use to escape such liability.