Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor is potentially the most important constitutional decision ever rendered by the Singapore Court of Appeal, insofar as it heralds a new and more intrusive approach to the judicial review of rights claims in Singapore. The ruling expressly overturned deference postures associated with the "presumption of constitutionality," at least with respect to Article 14 of the Constitution; it consolidated dicta announcing the reconfiguration of separation of powers doctrines; and it developed and deployed a rudimentary, if yet incomplete, form of proportionality review to assess the legality of legislation adopted under Article 14's limitation clause. The note analyses these changes from a comparative perspective, in light of the difficulties foreign apex courts have had in fully transitioning to a more balancing-friendly approach to rights adjudication.

The parents of a child who is born as a result of medical negligence may bring an action to seek compensation from the relevant medical authorities for the cost of raising the child. The action, known generically as 'wrongful birth', most commonly arises either when a child is born following a failure to identify foetal abnormalities which would have led to termination of the pregnancy, or when a child is conceived and born following a failed sterilisation procedure (when the more specific term 'wrongful conception' is often employed).

The Court of Appeal in Lee Chez Kee (C.A.) handed down a judgment with respect to the law on common intention and hearsay in criminal cases which has already attracted two case notes. This note adds to them by focusing on a particularly thorny issue before the Court, which is the relationship between the two statutory regimes providing for the admissibility of hearsay statements: the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, especially section 30. The case is unusual in that the Court rendered dissonant judgments with different outcomes. Choo Han Teck J. concurred with V.K. Rajah J.A.'s analysis that the confessional statements were not admissible, and thought that there was a need for a retrial, given the prejudicial nature of the evidence wrongly admitted. Rajah J.A.'s view was that there was no need for a re-trial as the other evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.