Courts & Tribunals
On 10 April 2013, the High Court dismissed two legal challenges in which plaintiffs gay couple Gary Lim and Kenneth Che sought to have the country's anti-gay sex law declared unconstitutional [R2.17].
On 14 February 2013, Justice Quentin Loh in chambers heard the case of Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee v. The Attorney General OS 1135/2012 – seeking an order that Section 377A of the Penal Code is void by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution. Judgment was reserved [C2.16], [R2.15].
On 30 November 2012, gay couple Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee filed a constitutional challenge in the High Court aimed at repealing Section 377A, the long-standing law that criminalizes gay sex [R2.14].
On 21 August 2012, the Court of Appeal, presided by Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang, Judge of Appeal V K Rajah and Justice Judith Prakash, said in a 106-page judgement that they found that Tan Eng Hong had an arguable case on the constitutionality of Section 377A that ought to be heard in the High Court [C2.13], [R2.12].
On 27 September 2011, the Court of Appeal reserved its decision in Tan Eng Hong's appeal challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code that prohibits sexual relations between men, to be delivered on a later date [R2.11].
On 27 September 2011, the Court of Appeal was expected to hear Tan Eng Hong's appeal challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code that prohibits sexual relations between men [R2.10].
On 15 March 2011, the High Court High Court judge Lai Siu Chiu dismissed the first appeal relating to the constitutional challenge against Section 377A of the Penal Code [C2.9], [R2.8].
On 14 December 2010, Tan Eng Hong was fined S$3,000 by a district court for performing fellatio on another man in a public toilet in Citylink Mall under Section 294A of the Penal Code [R2.7].
On 08 December 2010, the High Court of Singapore rejected an application filed by lawyer M Ravi who sought to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code that prohibits sexual relations between men [R2.6].
On 10 November 2010, 40-year-old Chin Chee Shyong was convicted under Section 294 of the Penal Code for having oral sex with another man in a shopping mall toilet cubicle on March 9 [R2.5].
On 24 September 2010, lawyer M Ravi filed an application in the High Court to challenge the legality of Section 377A of the Penal Code. A hearing will be fixed for the Court to rule whether the law should be deemed unconstitutional if the act is between consenting adults [R2.4]. The hearing was fixed for 07 December 2010 [R2.3].
The Singapore Court of Appeal found that penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary for the offence in [the now repealed] Section 377 . It has also been found that in certain circumstances oral sex contravened the section. Other forms of genital contact would be sufficient to found a charge of gross indecency [Citation required].
In April 2008, the City State Regulator fined a television station £5000 for featuring a gay couple in way that makes them look 'normal' [R2.2].
In February 1997, an appeals court ruled oral sex is illegal in the island state unless it is as a prelude to full heterosexual intercourse [R2.1].