Cases of acquittal under Singapore’s
Public Order Act due to ignorance are
extremely rare, and the recent pro-Palestinian procession case appears to be
unprecedented in its reasoning.

What makes this case unique
- The three women were acquitted because the court accepted their honest and reasonable belief that the route they took was not prohibited — largely because there were no signs or clear indicators that the area near the Istana was restricted.
- This sets a notable precedent, as most previous cases involving unauthorized assemblies or processions have resulted in convictions or fines, even when the participants claimed they didn’t know the law.

Why ignorance usually fails as a defence
- Singapore’s legal system generally follows the principle that ignorance of the law is not a defence.
- However, the Public Order Act includes a specific clause allowing acquittal if the accused had a reasonable and honest belief that their actions were lawful — which the judge found applicable here.

No prior cases found
- Based on available records and reporting, there are no other publicly known cases where individuals were acquitted under the Public Order Act solely because they didn’t know the route was prohibited.
Weak law, edwin tong need to sexplain