In the case of BLV v Public Prosecutor  SGCA 62, the Singapore Court of Appeal ("CA") found that the offender, who had falsified his evidence and even procured a witness to do the same, had abused the process of the court. In light of such conduct, the CA imposed a significant "uplift" (or increase) on the offender's existing sentence. In doing so, the CA discussed the factors that the court would consider for imposing an uplift which was due to an offender's abuse of the court's process.
On 22 August 2019, SMU School of Law welcomed Professor Birke Häcker (Professor of Comparative Law and Director of the Institute of European and Comparative Law at the University of Oxford), for a discussion on comparative law. She provided ‘a personal roadmap to comparative law’, touching on the history and origins of the field, as well as some basic comparative methodologies. She also shared her views on the future of comparative law in Singapore.
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.
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).