• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Court to decide on hearing date for Section 377A case

Kyo Kusanagi

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset

Court to decide on hearing date for Section 377A case

By Leong Wai Kit | Posted: 22 January 2013 1849 hrs

SINGAPORE: The High Court will set a date to hear the case revolving around a challenge against the law that makes sex between men a crime, after lawyers from both sides submit their documents.

Justice Quentin Loh has given the lawyers until 4 February to do so. He decided on this at a pre-trial conference on 18 January.

The case surfaced in September 2010, when Tan Eng Hong applied to have Section 377A declared unconstitutional.

Tan was arrested in March that year for having oral sex with another man at a public toilet in CityLink Mall.

Both of them pleaded guilty in October 2010 to an amended charge of committing an obscene act in a public place.

Each was fined S$3,000.

In December, 2010, Tan's constitutional challenge against Section 377A was struck out by the assistant registrar on the grounds that it was, among other things, an abuse of court process.

Tan appealed to the High Court but the judge dismissed it on the grounds that there was no real controversy to be decided, as he had already pleaded guilty and was convicted of a different charge.

Tan then took his case to the Court of Appeal, which disagreed with the High Court ruling.

Meanwhile, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has urged against public discussion on this matter.

This is because the statements made by members of the public risk sub judice contempt.

AGC said in a statement released on Tuesday night there would be a real risk of prejudice if the statements are calculated to affect the minds of the courts hearing the case, parties concerned in the case, or if they amount to public pre-judgement of the case.

It added it takes a serious view of any statements which are sub judice and will, if necessary, act to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

- CNA/ck

 
Top