User:Sgconlaw/Lim Meng Suang and another v. Attorney-General
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General is a Singapore High Court case delivered in 2013. It involved a male couple seeking a declaration to void section 377A[1] of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.), for being inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint). Section 377A criminalises any act of gross indecency between men, while Article 12(1) enshrines the fundamental right to equality. In reaching the decision, Quentin Loh J applied the test for constitutionality under Article 12(1) i.e. the “reasonable classification" test, to determine if section 377A is inconsistent with Article 12. Under this test, legislation is consistent with Article 12(1) if the classification prescribed by the legislation was founded on (1) an intelligible differentia or distinguishing feature, and (2) that the differentia bears a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. On the facts of the case, the intelligible differentia was found to have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The differentia underlying section 377A only covered acts of gross indecency between males, whilst its object was to strengthen the criminal law by empowering the prosecution of male homosexual conduct. Accordingly, the High Court observed that section 377A had a complete coincidence between the differentia underlying the classification and the object of the legislation. The purpose of section 377A was also found to be not illegitimate as it concerned the addressing of a discernable and not wholly unjustifiable social and public morality.
Sgconlaw/Lim Meng Suang and another v. Attorney-General | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Singapore |
Full case name | Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General |
Decided | 9 April 2013 |
Citation | [2013] SGHC 73, [2013] 3 S.L.R. 118 |
Case history | |
Related action | Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2013] SGHC 199, [2013] 4 S.L.R. [Singapore Law Reports] 1059, High Court (Singapore); |
Court membership | |
Judge sitting | Quentin Loh J |
Case opinions | |
S 377A of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.) is valid and not inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint). |
Subsequently, Tan Eng Hong v AG affirmed the decision in Lim Meng Suang v AG, and applied it accordingly to arrive at the same conclusion - that section 377A is not inconsistent with Article 12(1). Lim Meng Suang v AG, however, has attracted some controversy and criticism from Associate Professor Yap Po Jen from the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong.[2] He explains that the High Court should not have confined the purpose of section 377A to the original purpose given by the English Legislative Assembly. Rather, the High Court should have found a purpose which was more relevant to the modern Singapore context. [3]