LITT
Try LITT free
Public Prosecutor v MY [2006] SGHC 89
The court held that penetration is a requisite element of rape, and in the absence of evidence of penetration or an attempt to penetrate, the charge of attempted rape was not made out.
Public Prosecutor v Leong Siew Chor [2006] SGHC 81
Exception 5 to s 300 of the Penal Code (consent to death) must be construed strictly and requires unequivocal and unconditional consent, which was not present in this case.
Public Prosecutor v G Krishnasamy Naidu [2006] SGHC 64
The court rejected the defence of diminished responsibility, finding that while the accused suffered from morbid jealousy, it did not substantially impair his mental responsibility for the act of killing.
Abul Khabir Uddin Tohron Nisa v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 57
The court held that bail should be reduced when the accused has no prior convictions and has already spent time in remand, balancing the dual purposes of bail (presumption of innocence and preventing absconding).
Public Prosecutor v Rohana [2006] SGHC 52
The court held that life imprisonment was not appropriate for a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the actions were not premeditated, despite the presence of aggravating factors.
Mohd Aslam s/o Jahandad v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 46
A conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of a sole witness requires the trial judge to make a finding that the evidence is so compelling that a conviction can be secured by it alone.
R Alagiyasolan v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 40
An employer who fails to exercise due diligence in screening foreign workers cannot rely on ignorance of their immigration status as a defence.
Gan Too Cheh v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 23
Findings of fact by a trial judge based on the credibility of witnesses should not be overturned unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kiam Peng [2006] SGHC 207
The presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA is rebuttable by the accused on a balance of probabilities, and the court must assess the credibility of the accused's claim of ignorance in light of all evidence, including the failure to inspect the goods.
Lim Li Ling v Public Prosecutor [2006] SGHC 184
Section 5(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act imposes a mandatory term of imprisonment but leaves the imposition of a fine to the court's discretion, provided that if a fine is imposed, it must be between $20,000 and $200,000.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Ah Seng [2006] SGHC 122
In Public Prosecutor v Lim Ah Seng [2006] SGHC 122, the court sentenced the accused to two years and six months for culpable homicide. The judgment recognized the accused's history of domestic abuse and mental illness as unique extenuating circumstances warranting a departure from typical precedents
Sun Hongyu v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 72
The High Court's revisionary powers are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of serious injustice, not as a backdoor appeal for those who have pleaded guilty.
Public Prosecutor v Kok Weng Shang Bernard [2005] SGHC 64
The court held that life imprisonment is appropriate for a young offender suffering from schizophrenia where the offence is grave, the offender is of unstable character likely to commit such an offence in the future, and the consequences are specially injurious.
Yeo Eng Siang v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 47
An appellate court may intervene in findings of fact if the trial judge's logic is flawed or if the conviction is based on unsafe, sole witness testimony that is riddled with contradictions.
Chu Wai Kiu v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 32
The court held that imported goods subject to GST are treated as dutiable goods for the purposes of the Customs Act, and failure to declare such goods constitutes an offence under s 128(1)(f) of the Customs Act.
Pannirselvam s/o Anthonisamy v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 26
This case clarifies that for a rioting conviction under section 147, the prosecution only needs to prove the accused shared the common object of the assembly. Mere presence at the scene can establish membership even if no specific overt act is proven.
Public Prosecutor v Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and Another [2005] SGHC 233
The court held that wilful blindness as to the contents of a package containing controlled drugs does not constitute a defence to a charge of importing such drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 23
The High Court affirmed that the revisionary jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and only where there is serious injustice, and that the benchmark sentence for GST evasion is 15 to 20 times the tax evaded.
Robin Anak Mawang v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 222
The court held that it is not necessary to prove that the appellant personally punched the victim to establish a charge of rioting, provided the appellant was a member of an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt.
Public Prosecutor v Vijayakumar s/o Veeriah [2005] SGHC 221
The accused was convicted of murder as the court found he was the aggressor and did not act in private defence, and the killing was not a result of a sudden fight.
Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 22
The word 'use' in s 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act means to employ for the purpose of misleading the principal, and does not require the document to be submitted to a third party.
Lin Bin v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 213
The court held that the degree of control exercised by an employer is a significant factor in determining employment status, but the substance of the relationship must be considered. The court also affirmed that the prosecution need only establish that the appellant knew or had r
Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 195
To establish cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the victim was deceived, induced to deliver property, and the accused acted with dishonest intention. The inducement need not be the sole reason for the delivery of property.
Ng Chye Huay and Another v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 193
The court held that the police SOP for handling illegal assemblies was not discriminatory, and that the permit requirements under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Rules and the Films Act were valid and constitutional.