Charis Low

Charis Low is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2020 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 6 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law and sentencing. Their track record shows a 100.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 17% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Charis Low has demonstrated expertise across 37 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal law and sentencing.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Law	5 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized79% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	4 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Statutory offences	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice18% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
International Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Taxation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Theft	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trade Finance	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Income taxation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Sanctions Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
International Trade Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
United Nations Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Breach of Trust	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Locus Standi	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Prima Facie Case	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Reasonable Suspicion	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Prohibiting Order	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Search and Seizure	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Privilege	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Legal Professional Privilege	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Environmental Public Health Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Business Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Charis Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Charis Low has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	6 cases	100% of cases	Muhammad Hamir B Laka: Trafficking Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act(Aug 2022) PP v Sindok Trading & Ors: UN Sanctions Breach & DPRK Luxury Goods Supply(Mar 2022) Chua Ya Zi Sandy v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Breach of Trust Sentencing Appeal(Aug 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Charis Low's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.7
Complex Cases: 1 (17%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Won	62.7 parties avg	2.7	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2020	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2022	23.5 parties avg	3.5

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Charis Low's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Won	6(100%)	100%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2020	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2021	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2022	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 6 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Muhammad Hamir B Laka: Trafficking Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act 21 Aug 2022 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	21 Aug 2022	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): ConvictionThe Prosecution successfully convicted the Defendant on the 1st Charge (Amended) under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
2	PP v Sindok Trading & Ors: UN Sanctions Breach & DPRK Luxury Goods Supply 13 Mar 2022 Public Prosecutor (Appellant, Respondent)Won	13 Mar 2022	Public Prosecutor (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal AllowedThe Prosecution's appeals against the sentences imposed on Chong Hock Yen and the three corporate entities were allowed.
3	Chua Ya Zi Sandy v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Breach of Trust Sentencing Appeal 25 Aug 2021 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	25 Aug 2021	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe Public Prosecutor successfully defended the appeal against the sentence.
4	Tan Song Cheng v Public Prosecutor: Income Tax Act Offences & Sentencing Framework 08 Jun 2021 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	08 Jun 2021	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal dismissedThe court dismissed the appeals, endorsing the Prosecution's proposed sentencing framework.
5	Ravi v Attorney-General: Judicial Review, Legal Professional Privilege & Search/Seizure 12 Oct 2020 Attorney-General (Defendant)Won	12 Oct 2020	Attorney-General (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe plaintiff’s application for leave to commence judicial review under Order 53 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court is dismissed.
6	Public Prosecutor v Liew Yong Liang: Hinderance of NEA Officers under Environmental Public Health Act 11 Feb 2020 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Won	11 Feb 2020	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe Prosecution's appeal was allowed, setting aside the acquittal of the respondent.