LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

GCX v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGHC 14

The court held that an MTO suitability report should be called for if there is a real prospect of rehabilitation and other sentencing principles do not outweigh it, even if rehabilitation is not the dominant principle at the preliminary stage.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

TERENCE NG KEAN MENG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court of Appeal revised the sentencing framework for rape, replacing the PP v NF framework with a two-step sentencing bands approach.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

HALIFFIE BIN MAMAT v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

A complainant's testimony can ground a conviction for rape even without corroboration if it is unusually convincing, but where it is not, corroboration is required. The appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Holman, Benjamin John [2018] SGHC 237

The court held that deterrence and retribution are the primary sentencing considerations for voluntarily causing hurt in public spaces, and that intoxication is an aggravating factor rather than a neutral one.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Tan Zhenyang [2018] SGHC 209

In cases of road rage involving voluntarily causing hurt, deterrence is the predominant sentencing principle, and a custodial sentence is warranted even if injuries are relatively minor, provided the assault is severe.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Abdul Wahid Bin Ismail [2017] SGHC 87

The court held that the accused was guilty of trafficking in diamorphine and, in the absence of a certificate of substantive assistance from the Public Prosecutor, the mandatory death penalty must be imposed.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Tan Yao Min v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 311

The court held that specific deterrence and protection of the public were primary sentencing objectives for a recalcitrant offender, and that psychiatric conditions do not displace these objectives where the offender retains the capacity to control their actions.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v BLV [2017] SGHC 154

The court held that a complainant's evidence in sexual offence cases should be scrutinised for being unusually convincing, and that a delay in reporting does not automatically invalidate a victim's credibility.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Noor bin Abdullah [2016] SGHC 257

The court exercised its discretion under s 33B(1)(a) of the MDA to impose life imprisonment and caning instead of the death penalty, as the accused's role was limited to transporting, sending, or delivering the drugs.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Dewi Sukowati [2016] SGHC 152

In Public Prosecutor v Dewi Sukowati, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure — Sentencing, Sentencing.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and another appeal [2022] SGCA 67

The death penalty for murder under s 300(c) is not warranted where the offender did not comprehend the likelihood of death resulting from their actions and did not manifest a blatant disregard for human life.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 261

The court established a sentencing framework for reckless or dangerous driving under s 64(2C)(a) read with s 64(2C)(c) of the Road Traffic Act, emphasising that the serious offender provision enhances the overall punishment and that sentences for concurrent offences under ss 64 a

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Kannan s/o Birasenggam v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGCA 15

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the sentence imposed by the High Court was not manifestly excessive, considering the seriousness of the drug offences and the aggravating factor of offending while on bail.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters [2020] SGHC 265

The court established a sentencing framework for purely private sector corruption offences under ss 6(a) and 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, utilising a harm-culpability matrix approach.

Sushant Shukla· ·18 min read
Singapore

Zamri bin Mohd Tahir v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGCA 9

The court held that an accused's role as a courier under s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA is determined by their acts in relation to the specific consignment, and inchoate intentions dependent on future instructions do not automatically disqualify an accused from being a courier.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Hamzah bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2018] SGCA 45

The Court of Appeal held that applications to adjourn criminal appeals at the eleventh hour will not be granted as a matter of course, and counsel must state precisely the deficiency in their client's understanding to justify such requests.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v BDB [2017] SGCA 69

The court established that in cases of fatal child abuse prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal Code, the indicative starting point for sentencing should be around eight years' imprisonment, subject to calibration based on aggravating and mitigating factors.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

THANGARAJAN ELANCHEZHIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The court affirmed the conviction and sentence for outrage of modesty, finding that the appellant's contact was intentional and not accidental, and provided guidance on the court's role in managing the cross-examination of complainants in sexual offence trials.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGCA 22

The court held that while the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, it was out of line with precedents, and thus reduced the aggregate sentence to 15 years' imprisonment, noting that the new sentencing approach for rape and robbery would apply prospectively.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor & other appeals [2016] SGCA 58

A complainant's testimony in a rape case can ground a conviction if it is unusually convincing, or if it is corroborated by independent evidence. The appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read