Publication Type

Case note/Digest

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

5-2019

Abstract

Section 33B(4) of Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act purportedly partly ousts judicial review of the Public Prosecutor’s determination of whether a drug trafficker has substantively assisted the anti-drug enforcement agency. This paper argues that Singapore’s High Court erred in holding this provision constitutionally valid. Ouster clauses are unconstitutional vis-à-vis Articles 12(1) and 93 of the Constitution; the High Court’s view does not accord with the law on non-justiciability and is premised on a flawed theory of legislative intention. It is no answer that judicial power is subject to a ‘balance’ which renders a partial ouster clause constitutionally valid. The High Court’s view that section 33B(4) ousts review for non-jurisdictional errors of law is incompatible with Article 93, and is not justified by the ‘green-light’ theory. The effect of these problems is tempered by a potentially wider definition of unconstitutionality as a ground of review than the High Court considered. © 2019, © 2019 Faculty of Law, Oxford University.

Discipline

Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Jurisdiction

Research Areas

Asian and Comparative Legal Systems

Publication

Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal

Volume

19

Issue

1

First Page

157

Last Page

178

ISSN

1472-9342

Identifier

10.1080/14729342.2019.1610303

Publisher

Taylor & Francis (Routledge): SSH Titles - no Open Select

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2019.1610303

Download

Share

COinS