Wednesday, 29 July 2026 — SG Law Cookies

Today's Specials

the pineapple tarts — they change what you do on Monday

01○ NEWS

Proposed licensing regime for foundational digital infrastructure service providers.

The draft Digital Infrastructure Bill proposes a new regulatory framework and licensing regime specifically for major providers of foundational digital infrastructure services. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) is intended to be the administering and enforcing authority.

Why it mattersLawyers advising digital infrastructure providers will need to monitor the final Bill to determine if their clients fall under the 'major' threshold and what the new licensing obligations entail.

SLW READ SOURCE ↗

02○ NEWS

Proposed licensing regime for data centre operators focusing on security and sustainability.

The draft Digital Infrastructure Bill introduces a new licensing and regulatory framework for data centre operators. The regime aims to address the security of digital infrastructure services and the environmental sustainability of data centre operations.

Why it mattersData centre operators and their legal counsel must prepare for potential new compliance requirements regarding operational security and environmental standards.

SLW READ SOURCE ↗

03○ NEWS

Introduction of Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP) for high-risk offenders.

Effective July 31, 2026, the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2024 introduces the SEPP for high-risk violent and sexual offenders. This framework allows for indefinite detention based on risk assessments and replaces the previous Corrective Training and Preventive Detention regimes.

Why it mattersLawyers must advise clients that high-risk offenders may now face indefinite detention under a risk-based preventive regime for offences committed on or after July 31, 2026.

SLW READ SOURCE ↗

04⬡ JUDGMENT

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 clarifies that consent to sexual acts must be specific and ongoing, rejecting silence, prior sexual activity, broad advance consent, or lack of resistance as sufficient.

The Court held that an accused cannot rely on silence or passivity alone, prior sexual activity, broad advance consent to undefined activity, or lack of resistance as raising reasonable doubt about consent. Consent must be specific to the act in question and may be withdrawn at any time; where a person loses capacity through intoxication, prior consent ceases to operate.

Why it mattersThis provides authoritative guidance for practitioners defending or prosecuting sexual offences on what cannot constitute consent, and reinforces that capacity to withdraw consent is central to the analysis.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

05⬡ JUDGMENT

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 establishes that mistaken belief in consent requires both honest belief in affirmative communication and objectively reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The Court held that a defence of mistaken belief in consent requires the accused to honestly believe the complainant affirmatively communicated consent through words or conduct, and to have taken objectively reasonable steps to ascertain consent. A mere belief in inward desire is insufficient, and reasonableness is assessed based on circumstances known to the accused.

Why it mattersThis sets a clear two-limbed test for the mistaken belief defence that practitioners must address in sexual offence cases, raising the bar beyond subjective belief alone.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

06⬡ JUDGMENT

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 interprets s 73(2) Penal Code exception narrowly, requiring the offender to prove the relationship did not adversely affect the victim's ability to protect herself.

The Court held that the s 73(2) exception applies only where the relationship did not adversely affect the MDW's ability to protect herself, with assessment extending to circumstances before and after the offence. The burden lies on the offender to prove the exception applies, and generalised assumptions about MDW relationships are insufficient.

Why it mattersThis narrows the availability of the s 73(2) exception for enhanced punishment, requiring fact-specific analysis of vulnerability and placing the evidentiary burden squarely on offenders.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

07⬡ JUDGMENT

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 establishes three-step sentencing framework for s 73(1) enhanced punishment in rape and outrage of modesty cases involving MDWs.

The Court established a framework: (1) determine indicative starting sentence using existing frameworks, disregarding MDW vulnerability and abuse of position; (2) apply a 1% to 100% multiplier based on exploitation of vulnerability and abuse of authority; (3) apply offender-specific factors. The multiplier avoids double-counting and is calibrated to the specific circumstances.

Why it mattersThis provides a structured approach for practitioners and courts sentencing sexual offences against MDWs under s 73, with a calibrated multiplier that separates vulnerability exploitation from offence-specific factors.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

08⬡ JUDGMENT

SGHCR holds in [2026] SGHCR 28 that reflective loss bar is substantive and Giles v Rhind exception does not apply where company cannot sue due to alleged conspirators' control.

The claimant sought damages for devaluation of his shares, arguing the Giles v Rhind exception to reflective loss applied because the company was controlled by alleged wrongdoers and could not sue. Following Miao Weiguo and Marex, the Court held that the reflective loss principle is substantive—based on the nature of shares as a right to participate in profits, not a right to the company's assets—and not merely a rule against double recovery. The company's inability to sue therefore does not create a recoverable loss for the shareholder. The Court applied the 'cash box' analogy from Prudential Assurance.

Why it mattersShareholders in Singapore cannot circumvent the reflective loss principle by arguing the company is controlled by wrongdoers; this significantly narrows the practical availability of the Giles v Rhind exception.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

baked fresh
this morning

★ THE DAILY BAKE ★

Today's Specials

Proposed licensing regime for foundational digital infrastructure service providers.

Proposed licensing regime for data centre operators focusing on security and sustainability.

Introduction of Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP) for high-risk offenders.

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 clarifies that consent to sexual acts must be specific and ongoing, rejecting silence, prior sexual activity, broad advance consent, or lack of resistance as sufficient.

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 establishes that mistaken belief in consent requires both honest belief in affirmative communication and objectively reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 interprets s 73(2) Penal Code exception narrowly, requiring the offender to prove the relationship did not adversely affect the victim's ability to protect herself.

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 establishes three-step sentencing framework for s 73(1) enhanced punishment in rape and outrage of modesty cases involving MDWs.

SGHCR holds in [2026] SGHCR 28 that reflective loss bar is substantive and Giles v Rhind exception does not apply where company cannot sue due to alleged conspirators' control.

The Rest of the Menu

baked freshthis morning

★ THE DAILY BAKE ★

Today's Specials

Proposed licensing regime for foundational digital infrastructure service providers.

Proposed licensing regime for data centre operators focusing on security and sustainability.

Introduction of Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP) for high-risk offenders.

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 clarifies that consent to sexual acts must be specific and ongoing, rejecting silence, prior sexual activity, broad advance consent, or lack of resistance as sufficient.

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 establishes that mistaken belief in consent requires both honest belief in affirmative communication and objectively reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 interprets s 73(2) Penal Code exception narrowly, requiring the offender to prove the relationship did not adversely affect the victim's ability to protect herself.

Court of Appeal in CFE v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 35 establishes three-step sentencing framework for s 73(1) enhanced punishment in rape and outrage of modesty cases involving MDWs.

SGHCR holds in [2026] SGHCR 28 that reflective loss bar is substantive and Giles v Rhind exception does not apply where company cannot sue due to alleged conspirators' control.

The Rest of the Menu

baked fresh
this morning