Sometimes, following a conviction, an appeal is brought by the convicted person without any crossappeal by the Prosecution on the sentence. Can the appellate court nevertheless increase the sentence imposed below? This study of the relevant cases and statutory provisions in Singapore suggests that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal are vested with the power to increase the sentence even where the only appeal is brought by the convicted person.

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).