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.

A Swiss and a Miss: The Future of Swiss-style Patents in Singapore

In the recently-decided case of Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd[2017] SGCA 45, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) addressed a number of novel issues in Singapore patent law. The dispute between the two pharmaceutical companies was based on Novartis’ potential infringement of Warner-Lambert’s patent. This patent (filed in 1997) claimed a monopoly over the use of a substance, pregabalin, for the treatment of pain (the “Patent”).

Assistance in Public Lotteries: The Approach in Bijabahadur

In the 19th century, illegal gaming activities managed by syndicates were part of the general crime that was rampant in Singapore (then known as the Straits Settlement). This was a serious problem as the early inhabitants of Singapore became addicted to gambling, leading to undesirable outcomes.[1] Gambling activities came to be regarded as vices by Sir Stamford Raffles, and rules to regulate illegal public gambling were put into place.

Presumption of Resulting Trust following Chia Kok Weng

In the recent case of Chia Kok Weng v Chia Kwok Yeo, the Court of Appeal clarified the law on the presumption of resulting trusts. Specifically, the Court of Appeal made a distinction between (a) an intention to make a gift and (b) an intention to not retain a beneficial interest in the property. While they appear to be two sides of the same coin, it is necessary to distinguish between them in certain situations to afford greater protection to the uninformed transferor.

A principled approach to sentencing: Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor

Sentencing has always been something of an art. The balance between doing justice to the facts of the case and judicial consistency has proven to be somewhat elusive, in no small part due to the medley of factors which might arise for consideration. Fortunately, the recent Court of Appeal (“CA”) decision in Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor (“Ng Kean Meng”) has laid out a more principled approach to sentencing.