The Jurisdiction to Reopen Criminal Cases: A Consideration of the (Criminal) Statutory and Inherent Jurisdiction of the Singapore Court of Appeal
In criminal cases, it has been emphasised repeatedly that our Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is hence only seised of the jurisdiction that has been conferred upon it by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating it. This has resulted in the Court of Appeal steadfastly refusing...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2008
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1414 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In criminal cases, it has been emphasised repeatedly that our Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is hence only seised of the jurisdiction that has been conferred upon it by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating it. This has resulted in the Court of Appeal steadfastly refusing to reopen criminal cases already disposed of finally by way of appeal. However, in the arena of civil cases, the Court of Appeal possesses an inherent jurisdiction, which it uses to achieve a variety of results. Given that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court flows (arguably) not from the nature of cases it is hearing but the status of the Court itself, this article poses the question as to whether the distinction of the Court's inherent jurisdiction across criminal and civil cases is necessarily a sound one, and seeks to provide a possible answer. |
|---|