Adrian Loo

Adrian Loo is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2009 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 10 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 80.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 10% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Adrian Loo has demonstrated expertise across 36 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal law and sentencing.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Law	7 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	5 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	4 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized91% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	4 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	4 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	4 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Offences	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appeal	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Admissibility of evidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Drink Driving	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Customs Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Goods and Services Tax (GST)	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Drug Trafficking	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Adrian Loo 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 Specialized90% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Sentencing Principles	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Prospective Overruling	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Employment Agencies Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Confiscation and forfeiture	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Public Order	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Freedom of Religion	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Chain of Evidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Outrage of Modesty	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
White Collar Crime	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Adrian Loo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Adrian Loo has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 10 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	10 cases	100% of cases	PP v Yeo Liang Hou: Trafficking in Methamphetamine & Admissibility of Statements(May 2023) M Raveendran v Public Prosecutor: Drink Driving Sentence Appeal(Nov 2021) Wong Jing Ho, Samuel v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Dealing with Duty Unpaid Cigarettes(Sep 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Adrian Loo's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.4
Complex Cases: 1 (10%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	10%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	10%
Won	82.5 parties avg	2.5	80%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2016	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2020	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(10%)	10%
Partial	1(10%)	10%
Won	8(80%)	80%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	179,429.51	44,857.384 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2009	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	3 12	Partial: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2023	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 10 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	PP v Yeo Liang Hou: Trafficking in Methamphetamine & Admissibility of Statements 28 May 2023 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	28 May 2023	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Guilty verdictThe Public Prosecutor secured a guilty verdict against both accused.
2	M Raveendran v Public Prosecutor: Drink Driving Sentence Appeal 10 Nov 2021 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Partial	10 Nov 2021	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal Partially DeniedThe appeal was partially denied as the imprisonment term was only reduced from one week to five days.
3	Wong Jing Ho, Samuel v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Dealing with Duty Unpaid Cigarettes 29 Sep 2021 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	29 Sep 2021	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe Public Prosecutor successfully defended the appeal against the sentence.
4	Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar: Confiscation Order for Drug Trafficking Benefits 01 Feb 2021 Public Prosecutor (Plaintiff)Won	01 Feb 2021	Public Prosecutor (Plaintiff): Application AllowedConfiscation order granted for $167,429.51, being the value of benefits derived by the Defendant from drug trafficking. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	International Placements (S) Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor: Statutory Interpretation of Employment Agencies Act 05 Mar 2020 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	05 Mar 2020	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentThe appeal by International Placements (S) Pte Ltd was dismissed.
6	Axis Law Corp v Intellectual Property Office: Judicial Review & Amendment of Trademark Statement 03 Jul 2016 Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (Defendant, Respondent)Won	03 Jul 2016	Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (Defendant, Respondent): Judgment for DefendantJudgment for the Defendant; costs of $5,000 and disbursements of $1,000 awarded (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	Vijaya Kumar v Attorney-General: Challenge to Music Ban During Thaipusam Procession Based on Religious Freedom and Equality 16 Sep 2015 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	16 Sep 2015	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application dismissedApplication for leave to apply for a Quashing Order and a Mandatory Order was dismissed. The court ordered the three applicants to be jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs fixed by me at $6,000 and disbursements amounting to $1,923.80 for this application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Public Prosecutor v Shaik Alaudeen: Criminal Revision for Amendment of Drug Consumption Charge 20 Feb 2013 Public Prosecutor (Applicant)Lost	20 Feb 2013	Public Prosecutor (Applicant): Petition dismissedThe Public Prosecutor's petition to amend the charge against the respondent was dismissed.
9	PP v Chow Yee Sze: Sentencing Appeal for Outrage of Modesty under Penal Code s 354 29 Aug 2010 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Won	29 Aug 2010	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe Prosecution's appeal was allowed, and the sentences imposed by the District Judge were increased.
10	Public Prosecutor v Chen Mingjian: Trafficking in Controlled Drugs & Presumption from Possession 15 Sep 2009 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	15 Sep 2009	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Guilty as chargedThe accused was found guilty as charged.