In Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 62, the Court of Appeal clarified the application of the presumptions under sections 17 and 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (“MDA”), which relate to a presumption of trafficking (s17); presumption of possession (s18(1)); and presumption of knowledge (s18(2)). Here, the offenders were convicted by the High Court of drug trafficking offences under the MDA; their appeals to the Court of Appeal were based in part on rebutting these presumptions. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals for, inter alia, failing to rebut the presumptions.
Updating and rectifying the Constitution: Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General
The High Court in the recent matter of Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General introduced techniques of statutory interpretation heretofore absent from Singapore constitutional law. In interpreting Article 49(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (“the Constitution”), Chua Lee Ming J (“Chua J”), faced with a seemingly conflicting provision in s 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (“PEA”), had recourse to an updating construction and a rectifying construction of Article 49(1). This case note briefly analyses the judgment and explores some fundamental issues arising from employing these two methods of statutory interpretation on constitutional provisions.
Ah Boys to Men: Training Deaths and Accountability
Croesus might have been mistaken when he commented that “in peace, sons bury fathers, but in war fathers bury sons”. Training accidents do occur, and soldiers pay the ultimate price. On 18th April 2018, Corporal Dave Lee, a full-time National Serviceman, succumbed to heat injury following his fast march. Since then, allegations of the “reckless” behaviour of the training commanders involved have surfaced.
Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 40
When courts issue decisions establishing or clarifying sentencing guidelines, a concern is whether these guidelines should only be applied prospectively (known as “the doctrine of prospective overruling”), and if so what that prospectivity entails. In Adri Anton Kalangie v PP [2018] SGCA 40, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) held that although as a general rule, decisions establishing or clarifying sentencing guidelines will apply both retroactively as well as prospectively, the court laying down the guidelines may, in an exceptional case, state that such guidelines will only come into effect from a specific date. In such a case, the guidelines should apply to all offenders sentenced after the date of the decision, regardless of when they had committed the underlying offence. However, they would not apply to the actual offender in the decision.
Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] SGHC 148
In Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] SGHC 148, the Singapore High Court (“HC”) clarified the sentencing framework for offenders convicted of multiple offences. The main issue was whether concurrent or consecutive sentences should be meted out to an offender who had been convicted of multiple unrelated offences.
Negotiating Damages for Breach of Contract: Morris-Garner v One-Step Support Ltd [2018] UKSC 20
At the quantification stage in breach of contract claims, claimants must sometimes think out of the box. Where no loss has been suffered or loss is hard to prove, one solution is to argue for “negotiating damages”, or damages for breach of contract assessed by reference to the sum a claimant could hypothetically have received in return for releasing the defendant from the obligation breached. Unfortunately, the principles regarding their availability have been so lax and uncertain that negotiating damages have been labelled “jackpot damages”. In Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd, the UK Supreme Court considered the issue for the first time and sought to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Recognising the duty to cooperate in international commercial contracts
The duty of contracting parties to cooperate in the performance of commercial contracts is at once both intuitive, and utterly foreign. On the one hand, all commercial relationships require a degree of trust, and a party may reasonably expect that the other is committed to working together to carry out their bargain. This applies a fortiori in international commerce, where distance and unfamiliarity between parties make it necessary to trust the other to uphold their contractual promises. Yet, it may be argued that such expectations are unrealistic since all of commerce is motivated by self-interest. Despite this tension, it will be argued that the duty to cooperate is fundamental to international commercial contracts. This arises from the inherent nature of such contractual relationships, and is reflected in the increasing recognition of this duty in national legislation and transnational principles.
Defining the Jurisdiction of Family Justice Courts: UDA v UDB and another [2018] SGCA 20
In a divorce, multiple parties – including the spouses and third parties – may claim ownership of an alleged matrimonial asset. In UDA v UDB and another [2018] SCGA 20, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) held that family justice courts, which hear disputes over matrimonial assets, had the jurisdiction (i.e. authority to hear and determine a dispute brought before it) to decide only the claims of the divorcing spouses. They did not have the jurisdiction to decide claims by a third party (i.e. anyone other than the divorcing spouses) over property which was alleged by one or both spouses to be a matrimonial asset. Instead, such third party claims had to be determined in separate legal proceedings.
Busting Myths: Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion
The December 2017 decision to charge a couple who tortured their flatmate, Annie Ee, with the offence of “voluntarily causing grievous hurt”, as opposed to murder, sparked controversy in Singapore. An online petition seeking harsher punishments for the couple, continuing even after sentencing by the courts, garnered more than 39,000 signatories by April 2018. The case suggests some public confusion about prosecutorial discretion and how it works. This article attempts to explain the operation of prosecutorial discretion and to debunk certain common myths.
The Impact of TFL Management v Lloyds Bank and Relfo v Varsani on Requirements of Enrichment and “At the Claimant’s Expense”
Under the Battersea framework, it has been accepted that the claimant must establish that there is a connection or nexus between the (a) receipt of an enrichment by the defendant and (b) the claimant’s loss, so as to justify the unjust enrichment claim against the defendant. However, the question of whether the defendant has been enriched or the enrichment was at the claimant’s expense, is complicated, especially where it appears the enrichment was no more than an incidental benefit, or the defendant has received the enrichment only indirectly from the claimant.
smulexicon.com 