Under section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”), can the Prosecution charge two different people based on a common intention to commit a criminal act between them, but press a more serious charge against one accused person and a less serious charge against the other (“differing common intention charges”)? The Court of Appeal (“CA”) held that there was nothing under section 34 which required the Prosecution to bring identical charges against all who were charged pursuant to a common intention to do a criminal act. Further, there were good reasons why there was no general rule requiring the Prosecution to do so.
The Impossibility Defence: Han Fang Guan v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 11
The law on "impossible attempts" (i.e. attempts to commit an offence that could not have been possibly completed) has long been fraught with conceptual difficulties. In Han Fang Guan v PP [2020] SGCA 11, the Singapore Court of Appeal finally laid down a two-stage approach for such crimes.
Wilful Blindness in the Possession of Drugs: Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGCA 38
In Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGCA 38, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) clarified the operation of the doctrine of wilful blindness and its interplay with the presumption of possession under section 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”)
