The offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”) is one that typically attracts the death penalty. However, under section 33B(1)(b) of the MDA the court shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment in lieu of the death penalty if the offender can prove that (1) he was merely a courier and (2) he was suffering from an abnormality of mind substantially impairing his mental responsibility for the offence. In Roszaidi Bin Osman v PP, the Court of Appeal considered whether the accused’s mental responsibility for a drug trafficking offence had been substantially impaired by his major depressive disorder (“MDD”) and substance use disorder (“SUD”). In a rare 3-2 split decision, a majority of the court held that the accused's mental responsibility had been so substantially impaired. The majority found that his MDD and SUD had operated together in a synergistic manner, exacerbating his overall mental abnormality. The majority also noted that in drug trafficking offences, the court must consider whether the accused’s decision to commit the offence was itself due to his decision-making faculties being substantially impaired, instead of focussing solely on the execution of the offence.
Clarifying Presumptions and Interpretations Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 50
Under section 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA"), any person found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be possessing a controlled drug, knowing it is a controlled drug, and for the purposes of unauthorised trafficking, may be found guilty of drug trafficking. However, the last element (trafficking purpose) may be presumed under section 17 of the MDA if the other two elements are satisfied. What then happens if the Prosecution simultaneously mounts two alternative cases — a primary case seeking to directly prove all three elements, and an alternative case relying on the section 17 MDA presumption — and the Prosecution fails to prove its primary case but succeeds on its alternative case? The Court of Appeal (“CA”) considered this matter in Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 50. The CA found that the accused had neither established a reasonable doubt as to his guilt in the primary case, nor rebutted the presumption in the alternative case. However, the CA also noted that the Prosecution had needlessly complicated its case by advancing its primary case, when it could have simply relied on the section 17 MDA presumption. The CA also provided guidance on the proper approach for interpreting an accused person's statements.
Misconduct in the Bar Examinations: Consequences and the Need for Reflection and Learning Re Tay Quan Li Leon [2022] SGHC 133 and Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters [2022] SGHC 237
“Lawyers are called to be ministers in the temple of justice.” So what happens when aspiring lawyers cheat during the Bar exams? In Re Tay Quan Li Leon and Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters, the Singapore High Court ("HC") allowed five candidates who had cheated during the Bar exams to withdraw their applications for admission to the Bar, subject to certain terms and conditions, such as the exclusion of each candidate’s ability to bring a fresh application for Bar admission for a suitable minimum period of time. In so holding, the HC noted that the primary concern of the court in such cases is not to punish such candidates, but to ensure that they grow to become suitable for admission to the Bar. The HC also laid down a framework to aid future courts in determining the most appropriate course of action to be taken against such candidates.
Judicial Review of Vaccination-Differentiated Measures – Han Hui Hui and others v Attorney-General [2022] SGHC 141
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck the world, governments around the world - including Singapore - acted swiftly to curb the spread of the virus. Against this backdrop, Han Hui Hui and others v Attorney-General [2022] SGHC 141 came to the fore as the first judicial challenge against vaccination-differentiated safe management measures in Singapore, examining these measures on the grounds of illegality, irrationality, a breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore and substantive legitimate expectations.
The Framework and Margins of Transnational Issue Estoppel: The SAL Law Reform Committee Report (2023)
In transnational proceedings, the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel operates to prevent parties from relitigating the same issue in a different jurisdiction once it is determined conclusively in a court. The SAL Law Reform Committee’s recent Report on The Framework and Margins of Transnational Issue Estoppel explores the elements of this doctrine in Singapore, and highlights seven key potential outer limits that one should consider when seeking to invoke the doctrine in an appropriate case. It also seeks to provide a basis of reference from which principles of the transnational issue estoppel can be developed by courts in the future.
Can public servants exercising statutory duties be sued for breaches of private law duties? How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals [2022] SGCA 72
Town Council members are public servants exercising statutory duties under public law. But can they be sued in private law for breaches of private law duties? This question arose in How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals, where a Town Council sued its Town Council members for alleged breaches of certain private law duties, namely, (1) fiduciary duties, (2) equitable duties of care and skill, and (3) a common law tortious duty of skill and care. The Singapore Court of Appeal held that the Town Council members did not owe the Town Council any fiduciary or equitable duties. They, however, owed the Town Council a common law tortious duty of skill and care (subject to the limits placed by the Town Councils Act), which they had breached in respect of some of their actions.
Navigating Non-compete Clauses in a Competitive Tuition Industry
You work for a tuition centre, but you are overworked to the point where you have been repeatedly burning your weekends. Not to mention, you are also underpaid. You’ve tried raising these issues with your ex-boss but to no avail. “Enough!” you cry. You resign. Shortly after, you join your friend’s tuition company. Enraged, your ex-boss sends you a letter, demanding that you pay liquidated damages for breaching the non-compete clause in your employment contract. The above situation can be distressing for any ex-employee. Hence, this article seeks to educate employees, particularly tuition teachers, on non-compete clauses. It will also demonstrate why it is challenging for employers to enforce such clauses, largely due to the courts’ strict approach when assessing the validity of such clauses.
Limits under the Maintenance of Parents Act
My father is 65. He has been taking money from me ever since I started working 2 years ago, claiming it is his right as my father. He spends his money on gambling, drinking and cigarettes. I have refused to give him any more money but he threatens to take me to court under the Maintenance of Parents Act. What can I do about this?
Collaborations
With guidance from leading practitioners, these articles are written by SMU law students to raise awareness on specialised areas of law. SMU Lexicon would like to thank all practitioners for their support in reviewing the pieces, and working together with students to foster a stronger culture of legal writing in the SMU Yong Pung How … Continue reading Collaborations
Crypto Insolvency and You, Why it Matters
If you wish to dabble in crypto investments, what safeguards have the law developed to protect you when crypto companies go insolvent? This article considers this question from two angles: First, from the viewpoint of someone who has invested directly in the crypto-assets; and second, from the viewpoint of an investor of crypto-related companies such as a crypto exchange platform.
smulexicon.com 