LITT
Try LITT free
Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee bin Mohamed Sanip v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 172
In Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee bin Mohamed Sanip v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Muhammad Hisham bin Hamzah v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 171
In Muhammad Hisham bin Hamzah v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review.
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Hakam bin Suliman [2022] SGHC 160
In Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Hakam bin Suliman, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Wang Huijin v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2022] SGHC 159
In Wang Huijin v Public Prosecutor and another matter, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal.
Public Prosecutor v Manta Equipment (S) Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 157
In Public Prosecutor v Manta Equipment (S) Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v Saridewi bte Djamani [2022] SGHC 150
In Public Prosecutor v Saridewi bte Djamani, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal.
Public Prosecutor v CEP [2022] SGHC 15
In Public Prosecutor v CEP, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Mitigation.
Public Prosecutor v BZT [2022] SGHC 148
In Public Prosecutor v BZT, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Toh Suat Leng Jennifer v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 146
In Toh Suat Leng Jennifer v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Sheik Parvez Zunuas bin Shaik Raheem v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 138
In Sheik Parvez Zunuas bin Shaik Raheem v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Statutory Offences.
Public Prosecutor v CDL [2022] SGHC 122
In Public Prosecutor v CDL, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Mitigation.
Kwan Weiguang v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 121
In Kwan Weiguang v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 121, the High Court reduced the appellant's disqualification period to 12 months, ruling that mandatory re-testing under s 43(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act is a regulatory safety measure and must not be used as a punitive factor in sentencing.
Kuah Teck Hin v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 119
In Kuah Teck Hin v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Muhammad Rahmat bin Abu Bakar v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 118
In Muhammad Rahmat bin Abu Bakar v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Pua Om Tee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2022] SGHC 116
In Pua Om Tee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Hanib v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2022] SGHC 101
In Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Hanib v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Statements.
Poh Yuan Nie v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2022] SGCA 74
The offence of cheating under s 415 of the Penal Code does not require the intention to cause wrongful loss or gain of property (the s 24 requirement) when the deception involves a dishonest concealment of facts, as 'dishonest' in Explanation 1 is used in its ordinary sense.
Kong Swee Eng v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 65
In Kong Swee Eng v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal reference.
Saridewi bte Djamani v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2022] SGCA 64
In Saridewi bte Djamani v Public Prosecutor and another matter, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Statements.
Adeeb Ahmed Khan s/o Iqbal Ahmed Khan v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 61
In Adeeb Ahmed Khan s/o Iqbal Ahmed Khan v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure And Sentencing — Appeal.
Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2022] SGCA 57
In Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Compensation and costs, Civil Procedure — Costs.
Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 53
In Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Compensation and costs.
Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 51
In Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Stay of execution.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter [2022] SGCA 44
The Singapore Court of Appeal issued a $20,000 personal costs order against solicitors Mr. Ravi and Ms. Netto for abuse of process. The court ruled that initiating proceedings without a factual basis constitutes misconduct, clarifying that counsel's duty to the court supersedes client instructions.