LITT
Try LITT free
Public Prosecutor v Jingga bin Md Selamat alias Kwan Ah Chiam [2001] SGHC 10
A bailee can be guilty of drug trafficking even if they only become aware of the nature of the drugs after receipt, provided they continue to be in possession of them.
Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed v Public Prosecutor
The court held that the appellant's physical possession of the haversack containing drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and his silence at trial justified an adverse inference under s 196(2) CPC.
Tan Boon San v Public Prosecutor
The case affirms that an accused person's claim of ignorance regarding the nature of drugs must be scrutinized against all surrounding circumstances to rebut the statutory presumption of knowledge.
Public Prosecutor v Lee Lye Hoe [2000] SGHC 90
Ownership is not a necessary element of trafficking; persons who transport drugs for others or hold them as bailees are culpable.
Tang Keng Boon v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 9
The court held that for a conviction under s 5(b)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the subjective intention to corruptly give gratification, and that the objective corrupt element is satisfied if the payment is intended t
Mohamed Abdullah s/o Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 77
The case clarifies that 'common object' under s 141 of the Penal Code does not require a pre-arranged plan or common intention, and that an adverse presumption under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the defence if they fail to call a material witness without reas
Lau Lee Peng v Public Prosecutor
The defence of grave and sudden provocation requires both a subjective loss of self-control and an objective test of whether a reasonable man would have been so provoked. The appellant failed both tests.
Er Joo Nguang and Another v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 60
Abetment by conspiracy under s 107(b) of the Penal Code does not require the existence of a principal offender; two accessories can abet each other by conspiracy.
Public Prosecutor v Sim Teck Ho [2000] SGHC 66
Ignorance is not a defence to a charge of drug trafficking where the circumstances are highly suspicious and the accused had the opportunity to examine the contents of the package.
Public Prosecutor v Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed [2000] SGHC 61
The court held that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the drugs, and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions by electing to remain silent.
Public Prosecutor v Sharom bin Ahmad and Another [2000] SGHC 59
The court held that the accused were guilty of trafficking diamorphine based on possession and evidence of sale, and imposed the mandatory death sentence.
Lee Yuen Hong v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 50
In Lee Yuen Hong v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 50, the High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, quashing her conviction for conspiracy to misappropriate funds due to the prosecution's failure to prove essential elements. The court also denied a motion to adduce fresh evidence.
Public Prosecutor v Christopher S/O M P Nathan [2000] SGHC 43
The court held that the Complainant's testimony was credible despite her borderline intelligence, and that the Accused's defence of consent was unbelievable and contradicted by his failure to raise it in his earlier statements.
Public Prosecutor v Loganatha Venkatesan and Others [2000] SGHC 38
The court held that the three accused were guilty of murder based on common intention to kill the victim.
Public Prosecutor v Kum Mun Hou and Others [2000] SGHC 280
The court found that the first and third accused were involved in trafficking drugs based on evidence of their common intention and the recovery of drugs from the third accused's premises, while the second accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of t
Public Prosecutor v Tay Chin Wah [2000] SGHC 27
The court held that the presumption under s 4(2) of the Arms Offences Act that a person firing a revolver intends to cause personal injury was not rebutted by the accused's claim of firing in anger or nervousness.
Public Prosecutor v Koh Beng Oon [2000] SGHC 262
A pledge can be constituted as security for a contingent debt, and in the absence of an express prohibition in the contract, a pledgee has the right to sub-pledge the security.
Public Prosecutor v Netto Michael George [2000] SGHC 261
The court held that the complainant's evidence was unusually compelling and convincing, and that the accused's defence of consensual sexual intercourse was a fabrication.
Public Prosecutor v Ali bin Serti [2000] SGHC 251
Possession of drugs for the purpose of returning them to the owner constitutes possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Public Prosecutor v Kuah Kok Choon [2000] SGHC 244
For a charge of possession of a scheduled species under s 4(2) of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, the prosecution does not need to prove the date of import, only that the species is scheduled, that the accused was in possession, and that no import permit was issue
Tee Teng Heng v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 230
The court held that where an accused knows he has been banned from premises, he cannot claim to have a reasonable belief in a legitimate ground for entry, and an intent to annoy can be inferred from the circumstances of the trespass.
Public Prosecutor v S Bin N [2000] SGHC 211
The court acquitted the accused of rape charges due to grave doubts regarding the veracity of the complainant's evidence, citing inconsistent testimony and contradictions with other evidence.
Chua Seong Soi v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 195
For premises to be 'habitually' used for gaming under the Common Gaming Houses Act, they must be used primarily for gaming. Incidental gaming in premises used primarily for legitimate business does not constitute a common gaming house.
Loh Ah Kow v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 190
The court held that a room within a larger premises can constitute a 'place' under the Common Gaming Houses Act, and that the presumption under s 17 of the Act applies even if the prosecution does not lead positive evidence of the regularity of the entry, provided the issue was n