In Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 59, the Court of Appeal upheld the fundamental principle that an accused person should know with certainty, and thus have a full opportunity to meet, the case advanced against him by the Prosecution. For instance, where the Prosecution advances a composite case comprising several facets, the Prosecution should make it explicit if it is seeking a conviction based on any individual facet.
Presumption vs Proof: Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 62
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.
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.
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.
Singapore Patent Protection – Rejecting the Doctrine of Equivalents: Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 18
In the recent case of Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 18, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) addressed an issue concerning patent construction: whether Singapore should adopt the approach taken by the UK Supreme Court in Actavis UK Limited v Eli Lilly and Company [2017] UKSC 48 (“Actavis”), which reformulated the UK approach to patent construction and infringement.
Unpacking the Courier Exception in the Misuse of Drugs Act: Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 8
When is a drug trafficker who claims to be a mere ‘courier’ not merely a ‘courier’? The Court of Appeal addressed this question in Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [2018] SGCA 8. The issue was whether a drug trafficker who divided and repacked drugs was merely “transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug” under s 33B(2)(a)(iii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), and hence eligible for discretionary life imprisonment (rather than the death penalty) under this so-called “courier exception”.
smulexicon.com 