LITT
Try LITT free
Public Prosecutor v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Another [2002] SGHC 240
The court held that the accused persons were guilty of drug trafficking based on the evidence of possession and the failure to rebut statutory presumptions.
Public Prosecutor v Loo Kun Long [2002] SGHC 235
Section 30(2)(a) of the Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed) is to be interpreted as imposing a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 per film, notwithstanding the ambiguous drafting, to give effect to Parliament's clear intention.
Chia Sze Chang v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 232
An appellate court will be slow to overturn findings of fact by the trial judge especially when an assessment of the credibility and veracity of the witness has been made.
Mohammed Zairi Bin Mohamad Mohtar and Another v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 23
An appellate court will defer to the trial judge’s findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong or against the weight of evidence, and a witness's credit being impeached does not mean all their evidence must be disregarded.
Public Prosecutor v Wanari bin Kamri [2002] SGHC 226
The court found the victim's testimony reliable and rejected the accused's claims of consent and lack of penetration, leading to conviction.
Gan Hock Keong Winston v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 221
An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence, and a trial judge is not obliged to accept the exculpatory evidence of a prosecution witness if their credit has been impeached.
Public Prosecutor v Huang Rong Tai and Another [2002] SGHC 218
The court acquitted the accused because the sole evidence against them, the confession of the first accused, was unreliable due to his educationally sub-normal status and the circumstances of the confession.
Tan Choon Kin v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 209
An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence, especially where the trial judge has had the benefit of observing the demeanour of witnesses.
Lee Eng Hock v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 20
The High Court dismissed an application for criminal revision, emphasizing that such jurisdiction is exercised sparingly. It is reserved for cases involving manifest errors or irregularities that lead to serious injustice.
Lim Chuan Huat and Another v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 2
The court held that while the charges were duplicitous due to the phrase 'various occasions', the error was curable under s 396 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it did not cause a failure of justice or prejudice the appellants' defence. Furthermore, a joint trial was permissible
Shamsul bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 191
An appellate court should not intervene in a trial judge's findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong, especially when the trial judge has applied a strict standard of scrutiny to the evidence.
Mohd Ghalib s/o Sadruddin v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 188
The court held that expert handwriting evidence, if unopposed and based on sound grounds, should be accepted. It also affirmed that the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) provides for heavier penalties than the Penal Code for giving false information to the CPIB.
Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston [2002] SGHC 187
The High Court held that subordinate courts have no power to alter a sentence once pronounced, except for clerical errors or mistakes before the court rises for the day. Furthermore, caning cannot be executed in instalments, so additional strokes cannot be ordered if the original
Public Prosecutor v Quek Loo Ming [2002] SGHC 171
The court held that in sentencing for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the court must consider the specific circumstances of the case, including the accused's age, remorse, and prior unblemished record, while balancing the need for deterrence.
G Ravichander v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 167
The court held that corrective training is a reformative regime and the length of the sentence should be determined by the time required for reform rather than standard sentencing tariffs.
Public Prosecutor v Mohd Razali bin Mohd [2002] SGHC 161
The court sentenced the accused to imprisonment for rape offences, noting that the accused was not liable for caning due to his age (63 years) under s 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Public Prosecutor v Ng Hua Chye [2002] SGHC 154
The court held that it has the power to direct which sentences are to run consecutively and which concurrently under s 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that there is no rule requiring a life sentence to be the precedent sentence.
Lim Kim Luan v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 147
An appellate court will generally defer to the trial judge's findings of fact unless it is convinced that the decision is wrong.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Hock Hin [2002] SGHC 145
Life imprisonment is appropriate for mentally impaired offenders convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the primary concerns are treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention of future harm to the public.
Public Prosecutor v MW [2002] SGHC 144
The court held that sexual offences committed by a father against his daughter must be punished severely, with consecutive sentences for multiple charges to reflect the gravity of the abuse.
Senthamel Selve d/o Ramanathan v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 143
An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence.
Abu Syeed Chowdhury v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 14
A custodial sentence is the applicable norm for offences of false representation under s 57(1)(k) of the Immigration Act, and a fine should only be warranted under exceptional circumstances.
Loh Kok Siew v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 121
The court will only grant a further postponement of the commencement of a sentence of imprisonment if the applicant can show dire and urgent circumstances, and the burden of proof lies on the applicant.
Koh Thian Huat v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 120
The High Court's revisionary powers are not a substitute for an appeal and will only be exercised to prevent serious injustice or correct errors of law or procedure.