LITT
Try LITT free
Public Prosecutor v Randy Rosigit [2024] SGHC 171
In Public Prosecutor v Randy Rosigit, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences ; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v Lin Haifeng [2024] SGHC 168
In Public Prosecutor v Lin Haifeng, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Appeal ; Criminal Law — Criminal conspiracy.
Public Prosecutor v CRX [2024] SGHC 162
In Public Prosecutor v CRX, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing, Criminal Law — Offences.
Muhammad Nurashik bin Mohd Nasir v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 161
In Muhammad Nurashik bin Mohd Nasir v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal.
Gan Hsiao Ching Elizabeth (alias Yan Xiaoqing Elizabeth) v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 159
The court affirmed that the mens rea requirement in s 477A of the Penal Code is concerned with the fraudulent intent of the person charged, and there is no requirement that the falsified document must originate from the employer.
GFX v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 140
In GFX v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences ; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v Iskandar bin Jinan and another [2024] SGHC 134
In Public Prosecutor v Iskandar bin Jinan [2024] SGHC 134, the High Court sentenced two repeat drug offenders to 32 and 31 years' imprisonment. The judgment clarifies sentencing frameworks for repeat offenders, emphasizing the totality principle and the application of consecutive sentences under the
Public Prosecutor v CGA [2024] SGHC 131
In Public Prosecutor v CGA, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences ; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Jayant Jivan Golani v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 12
In Jayant Jivan Golani v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Appeal, Criminal Law — Statutory offences.
Public Prosecutor v CEO [2024] SGHC 109
In Public Prosecutor v CEO, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences ; Criminal Law — Abetment.
Merlur Binte Ahmad v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 8
In Merlur Binte Ahmad v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences.
Shen Hanjie v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 6
In Shen Hanjie v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory Offences.
Public Prosecutor v CPS [2024] SGCA 59
Rehabilitation is not the predominant sentencing consideration for young offenders who commit serious offences like rape, especially when aggravating factors such as victim vulnerability, group elements, and recalcitrance are present.
Chang Peng Hong Clarence v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 58
The Court of Appeal held that under s 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a sentencing judge must impose a separate penalty order for each charge of accepting gratification on which an accused is convicted, rather than a single global penalty order.
Iskandar bin Jinan v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2024] SGCA 55
The Court of Appeal calibrated the Sentencing Advisory Panel's PG Guidelines for drug trafficking and importation offences, establishing a maximum sentence reduction of 10% for guilty pleas, with a maximum of 5% for subsequent stages, while affirming that the guidelines are non-b
CRH v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 29
In CRH v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Appeal; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail [2024] SGCA 22
In Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Salihin bin Ismail, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences.
Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 17
Applications for criminal references under s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code must satisfy four conditions, including that the question must be one of law of public interest. A question is not of public interest if it is settled by the highest court or if it is a mere question
Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 13
In Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences.
Public Prosecutor v Low Sze Song and another [2023] SGHC 95
The court found that the chain of custody for the drug exhibits was intact and that the accused persons failed to rebut the presumptions of possession and knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng and another appeal [2023] SGHC 93
The High Court affirmed that a complainant's testimony can establish proof beyond reasonable doubt if it is unusually convincing, regardless of corroboration. In this case, the testimony was both exceptionally credible and supported by external evidence.
Loh Siang Piow (alias Loh Chan Pew) v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 74
The court held that the complainant's uncorroborated testimony was not 'unusually convincing' and that the Prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and the failure of the District
Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman [2023] SGHC 60
The court held that the accused failed to satisfy the requirements of s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA as he did not suffer from an abnormality of mind, and his drug-related conditions were self-induced and transient.
Haleem Bathusa bin Abdul Rahim v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 41
The High Court dismissed the appeal in Haleem Bathusa bin Abdul Rahim v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 41, enhancing the sentence from five to seven weeks' imprisonment and imposing a nine-month driving disqualification due to the appellant's flight from the scene and poor traffic antecedents.