Talk:Precedent fact errors in Singapore law/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article; I'll add comments here as I go through it. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The willingness of the Court to review such errors of fact can be said to be an exception to the general rule that the Court only reviews errors of law": how about changing "can be said" to "is"? I don't see any reason for cautious wording here.
 * As with the other articles I've read on this topic, I think it's important to clarify to the reader why UK law is relevant.
 * "...an error of law involves a misinterpretation of a statutory word or phrase to such facts": what does "to such facts" mean?
 * I think it means "with regard to the facts of the case" or "when applied to the facts of the case". --Hildanknight (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest identifying Thio Li-ann so that the reader knows why her opinion is significant.
 * " who had settled in England since 1962": I'd suggest either "who had lived in England since 1962" or "who had settled in England in 1962".
 * "Khera had entered the country by allegedly deceiving a medical officer into thinking he was not married": I don't think this is quite the right construction, since something alleged can't really be part of a subordinate clause in this way without implying that it really happened. Perhaps "Khera had allegedly entered the country by deceiving a medical officer into thinking he was not married", with "allegedly" applying to the act of deceitful entry?
 * Putting the word allegedly in front of "entered the country" is misleading. It was not disputed that Khera entered the UK. What was alleged was that he had done so by deceiving a medical officer. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK; I see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * At the end of the discussion of Zamir, I'm not clear if Zamir still holds in certain circumstances, but in others the more recent cases have superseded it; or if Zamir is no longer a useful reference point, and is discussed solely because it is closely involved with the development of the law on this point. Which is the case?  I'm not sure what to recommend to resolve the uncertainty till I know which is true.
 * As the article states, "[t]he House of Lords modified its holding in Zamir" in the later case of Khawaja, but did not entirely overrule it. The current principle is that "although the principle is correct in appropriate circumstances, 'it cannot extend to interference with liberty unless Parliament has unequivocably enacted that it should'". In other words, in cases where the action taken by the public authority interferes with a person's liberty, the court will regard the case as falling within the precedent fact category unless Parliament has made it "crystal clear" that the courts are not to exercise judicial review. Where there is no interference with liberty, the original Zamir rule applies. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On rereading, the article does say this; I just didn't understand it first time through; I'll strike my comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "the court has a responsibility of deciding if the precedent fact has been satisfied": how about "the court has the responsibility of deciding", or "the court is responsible for deciding"?
 * Done for now; I will place the article on hold to allow time for a response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything is dealt with; I will go ahead and pass this for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)