In Haris Ibrahim, the Federal Court of Malaysia discussed the legal limits to executive authorities’ powers to investigate judges on suspicion of crime. The case is a rare contribution to the jurisprudence on judges’ criminal liability at common law, as well as a case study in the challenges of reconciling judicial independence with other principles of the constitutional framework and other actors’ roles therein. The Court held that the implied constitutional principle of judicial independence requires that executive authorities follow a “set of protocols” (which the Court formulated) when investigating sitting judges. This was not wrong in principle, but the Court’s understanding of the separation of powers did not give sufficient weight to other constitutional principles which require that the executive, too, be able to do its job without being unduly hindered – particularly when that job itself serves to safeguard constitutional values such as judicial accountability.

Two comparative law jurists accurately observed this character of legal development more than two decades ago. The laws of several countries of the effect of marriage on each spouse’s interest in the property of the other acquired during the course of their marriage are proving this proposition. This note records developments in Singapore and England. Recent decisions in England portend to mirror earlier development in Singapore.