Under section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”), can the Prosecution charge two different people based on a common intention to commit a criminal act between them, but press a more serious charge against one accused person and a less serious charge against the other (“differing common intention charges”)? The Court of Appeal (“CA”) held that there was nothing under section 34 which required the Prosecution to bring identical charges against all who were charged pursuant to a common intention to do a criminal act. Further, there were good reasons why there was no general rule requiring the Prosecution to do so.
Collaboration with the Supreme Court
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.
Dealing with workplace bullies
According to a survey by Kantar, Singapore has one of the highest levels of workplace bullying in the world. In just the past year, one in every four Singapore employee has felt bullied, undermined or harassed at the workplace. These acts of bullying can take many forms and come from many different people, including your co-workers, managers and customers.
The Limits to Freedom of Contract: Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another [2020] SGCA 52
In line with the principle of freedom to contract, the courts will give effect to the intention of the parties in creating their contract, and also hold them to their duty to perform their primary obligations under such contract. However, where the contracting parties agree to vest certain decision-making powers to a specific (non-judicial) entity, to what extent may a court review the exercise of powers by such entity?
Dealing with the neighbour from hell
In a perfect world, we would all live in neighbourhoods with perfectly manicured lawns, picture-perfect houses and most importantly, friendly neighbours who ask about your day. Unfortunately, in population-dense Singapore, where housing grows narrower, this perfect world may be out of reach for most of us. And with so many Singaporeans living at close quarters with each other, disputes are bound to come up.
Erring on the Side of Disclosure: the Prosecution’s Additional Disclosure Obligations under Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 984
The Prosecution has been described as owing “a duty to the court and to the wider public to ensure that only the guilty are convicted, and that all relevant material is placed before the court to assist it in its determination of the truth”. However, what exactly does the scope of this duty entail? The Court of Appeal (“CA”) addressed this question in Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 984.
Can a Non-Disclosure Agreement really protect me?
“My employee signed a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) with my company, promising not to divulge my company’s confidential information to anyone. I recently found out that he has been sharing my customers’ list and other sensitive information to our competitor. How can I enforce the NDA against him?”
Clarifying “cannabis” and “cannabis mixture”: Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 43
How should cannabis and cannabis mixture be defined? Should the penalty on trafficking, importing, or exporting of cannabis mixture be calibrated based on the gross weight? Can the Prosecution charge an alleged offender with both knowledge of importing cannabis and cannabis mixture? These are some of the questions the Court of Appeal (“CA”) answered in Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 43.
Global Public-Private Law Approaches to COVID-19 – Insolvency Law in China and Europe
On 3rd July 2020, the SMU School of Law held the second webinar of its Virtual Academic Series themed ‘Global Public-Private Law Approaches to COVID-19’. Chaired by Professor Lau Kwan Ho (SMU), the speakers – Professor Gao Simin (Tsinghua University) and Professor Kristin van Zwieten (University of Oxford) compared the legal implications of the COVID-19 outbreak on Insolvency Law in China and Europe.
Genocide in the Virtual Realm? International Criminal Court Moot 2020
The International Criminal Court Moot Competition (“ICC Moot”) is the largest and most prestigious moot on international criminal law. This competition, held at The Hague in the Netherlands, simulates actual ICC proceedings by involving judges from international courts, tribunals and legal academics. Through the moot, participants acquire in-depth knowledge of international criminal law and the ICC itself, as well as familiarise themselves with other key institutions in this field. Beyond that, participants are able to network with professors, practitioners and other competition participants from all around the world.
