Wilful Blindness in the Context of the Presumption of Knowledge: Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 180

Under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “MDA”), it is an offence, with consequences that may extend to the mandatory death penalty, to import into or export from Singapore controlled drugs. As part of proving the charge, the Prosecution must prove that the accused was both in possession of, and had knowledge of the controlled nature of the drugs involved. Further, under section 18 of the MDA, the Prosecution is also allowed to rely on a presumption - under certain circumstances - that the accused did indeed have said possession (section 18(1)) and knowledge (section 18(2)). If the accused is unable to rebut these presumptions, the elements of possession and knowledge are made out under section 7.  

Deciding Priority between Two Competing Judgment Creditors: Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd v Peter Low & Choo LLC and another [2020] 2 SLR 1399

Where a judgment in respect of a debt is concerned, a “judgment creditor” is the party to whom the debt is owed, and a “judgment debtor” is the party who has been ordered by the court to pay a sum of money – the “judgment debt” – to the judgment creditor. However, obtaining the court order alone will not necessarily provide the judgment creditor with satisfaction, as the judgment debtor may not want to, or may not be able to, satisfy the judgment debt.

Debt Management Plans: A Practical Solution for Debt-laden Individuals

Written by: Su Jin Chandran Introduction How does one achieve financial freedom? One typical answer may be to spend below our means. Unfortunately, some of us may already be beyond the point of no return, with interest causing a seemingly-unstoppable spiral into bankruptcy.[1] Still, there is still hope for individuals who are unable to pay … Continue reading Debt Management Plans: A Practical Solution for Debt-laden Individuals

Conflicts in Legal Representation: Law Society of Singapore v Lee Suet Fern (alias Lim Suet Fern) [2020] SGHC 255

It is not surprising that the law regulates the conduct of lawyers, especially when it comes to the lawyer’s duty to the client. In such relationships, lawyers are placed in positions of trust, with clients relying on them for their expertise, integrity, and judgement. The law thus obliges lawyers to act with utmost loyalty and care in dealing with their clients. Such duties are not restricted to situations where a lawyer expressly enters into a retainer agreement[1] with a client (i.e. an express retainer). For example, where an express retainer is not established, but the parties nevertheless act in a manner which conveys a lawyer-client relationship, a retainer may still be implied, with similar duties imposed on the lawyer. Further, even if no retainer is established, a lawyer can still be sanctioned if his/her conduct is found to be unbefitting of a lawyer.

Limits on the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Assembly: Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 111

Is section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act (Cap 257A, 2010 Rev Ed) (“the POA”), which restricts the constitutional right of peaceable assembly, a valid derogation from Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Cap 1, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Constitution”)? This question was considered by a five-judge coram of the Court of Appeal (“the CA”) in Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 111.

Changes to Sentencing Guidelines for Workplace Negligence: Mao Xuezhong v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGHC 99

In recent years, the higher courts have been issuing more sentencing guidelines to ensure the consistency of sentences being meted out to offenders. In Mao Xuezhong v Public Prosecutor (“Mao Xuezhong”), a three-Judge coram of the High Court issued a new sentencing guideline for offences under s 15(3A) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (“WSHA”):

Gender Roles Have Changed – The Law on Maintenance Should Too

The Women’s Charter marked a significant swing for gender equality in Singapore. Its founders wanted to foster the principle of equality between women and men through its enactment.[1] Under the Charter, both spouses are regarded as equal beings capable of cooperating with each order to promote the interests of the marriage.

Recently, the debate on issues relating to gender equality has received much attention in the public forum. On 20 September 2020, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam has announced that the Singapore government will review crucial issues on gender equality which will culminate in a White Paper by the first half of next year.