新加坡法律饼干店
#01-LAW
est. 2023 · baked daily, no holidays
FRESH BATCH · 06:05 SGT
SELF SERVICE · 自助服务
18 cookies today

baked fresh
this morning

Singapore's daily legal output, reduced to the signals worth biting into.

★ THE DAILY BAKE ★

DATEFRI 31 JUL 2026
OVEN OPENED06:05 SGT

○ NEWS4
⬡ JUDGMENTS14
▲ PINEAPPLE TARTS1
FRESH15
COOLING RACK2

BUSIEST OVENCRIMINAL LAW ×6
NEW INGREDIENT"CLAUSE 35.1 OF THE PSSCOC"

thank you — come again tomorrow

FRESHLY LOGGED

straight from the oven, tray by tray

DISPLAY CASE · SCROLL →
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 160 that section 79 mistake of fact defence requires honest belief in affirmatively communicated consent and objectively reasonable steps to ascertain it, with awareness of severe intoxication negating good faith. Criminal Law · JUDICIARY PINEAPPLE TART · ACT ON
MAS finalises revised liquidity risk management guidelines for fund management companies. Investment Companies Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
Expert panel recommends 'safer by design' regulation for social media instead of total bans. Privacy Law · SLW $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 156 that applicants may be estopped from seeking mandatory relief by prior adverse decisions in related proceedings. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court clarifies in [2026] SGHC 156 that judicial review grounds outside limited permission scope constitute abuse of process even where illegality and irrationality may overlap. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 156 that lack of prior notification of policy change is an illegality argument, not an irrationality argument, and cannot be entertained under limited permission. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 156 that uniform application of a general licensing policy is not irrational where supported by public order evidence, provided discretion is not fettered. Public and Administrative Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
SGHCR holds in [2026] SGHCR 29 that where a claim is intrinsically defective, the court should strike it out rather than set aside default judgment to allow a trial. Civil Contract Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
SGHCR holds in [2026] SGHCR 29 that inducing breach of contract claims against directors require pleading that the director acted in breach of duties to the company. Corporate Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
SGHCR holds in [2026] SGHCR 29 that piercing the corporate veil and unlawful means conspiracy claims require 'utmost particularity' and specific personal acts, not reliance on status. Corporate Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 160 that 'stupor'—near-unconsciousness with poor responsiveness—satisfies section 90(b) of the Penal Code for incapacity to consent, rejecting defence expert evidence that reflexive behaviours demonstrate capacity. Criminal Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 160 that medical evidence of posterior fourchette laceration common in sexual assaults can corroborate a complainant's account and satisfy the 'unusually convincing' standard. Criminal Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 160 that section 157 of the Evidence Act impeachment of an accused does not mandate total rejection of testimony if evaluated against objective facts. Criminal Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH
High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 160 that exploitation of intoxication, violation of victim's home, and failure to use condom place rape sentence in middle of Band 2 at 14 years and six months with 12 strokes of caning. Criminal Law · JUDICIARY $0.60 · FRESH

The chips on each cookie are its FOLIO concepts — more chips, more doctrine. Pineapple tarts are reserved for the signals you act on. 2 more bakes are on the cooling rack below.

Today's Specials

the pineapple tarts — they change what you do on Monday
01⬡ JUDGMENT

High Court holds in [2026] SGHC 160 that section 79 mistake of fact defence requires honest belief in affirmatively communicated consent and objectively reasonable steps to ascertain it, with awareness of severe intoxication negating good faith.

Applying Asep Ardiansyah v PP and CFE v PP, and citing R v Barton, the court held that 'good faith' under section 79 requires both honest belief and objectively reasonable steps to ascertain affirmative consent. The Accused's awareness of the Complainant's severe intoxication, nausea, vomiting, and need for physical support gave him no basis for such belief, and 'playful' pre-incident behaviour per Pram Nair v PP does not equate to consent.

Why it mattersThis elevates the threshold for mistake of fact defences in sexual assault cases, requiring defendants to demonstrate affirmative consent-seeking behaviour and negating reliance on ambiguous social cues when complainant incapacity is apparent.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗