Under the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, it is an offence for any person to observe or record someone doing a private act, without that person’s consent. It is also an offence to possess, gain access to, distribute, or threaten to distribute images so recorded.This paper focuses on the core offence of voyeurism, and its interpretation under the new laws.
In the decision of BOI v BOJ, the Court of Appeal clarified that lottery winnings received during a marriage constitute matrimonial assets to be divided between parties, should they divorce. The court also set out the approach to attributing contributions from lottery winnings. Instead of examining who purchased the winning ticket, the court will focus on the intention with which the ticket was purchased. For parties seeking a divorce, this approach creates a greater responsibility to clearly show their intention that the winnings be fully attributed to them.
The SICC and SIDRA recently concluded a thought leadership event on dispute resolution options for trust disputes. The key issue was: given the increasing prevalence of alternative forms of dispute resolution (“ADR”), why was there still uncertainty as to whether trust disputes were amenable to ADR (and in particular, arbitration)? The distinguished panellists provided a stimulating discussion of the various conceptual and practical difficulties faced in submitting trust disputes to arbitration.
In Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor  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”)
In Public Prosecutor v ASR  SGCA 16, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) discussed the appropriate sentencing approach for a young offender, the respondent, who committed serious crimes, including aggravated rape and sexual assault by penetration on an intellectually disabled young girl, but who was also himself intellectually disabled, with a mental age of between eight and ten. The respondent was 14 years old when he committed the offences in question. When he was convicted in 2017, he was about 16 ½ years old. He was nearly 18 years old at the time of sentencing, in 2018.
Under section 254(1)(i) of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed), the court may order the winding up of a company where misconduct by the company’s director creates a “justifiable loss of confidence” in his/her management of the company. However, even if such a ground for winding up is established, the court retains “residual discretion” to decline to grant such an order. In Douglas Foo Peow Yong v ERC Prime II Pte Ltd  SGCA 67, the Court of Appeal discussed when such justifiable loss of confidence might occur, and how the courts should exercise their residual discretion.
September 24, 2018 marked the opening of Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law’s Centre for AI & Data Governance (CAIDG). The opening occurred at the end of a day-long Singapore AI workshop jointly organised by CAIDG and the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University.