[2006] 2 SLR 70
| Year | 2006 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
67 cases
-
Ong Pang Siew v PP
...see Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR(R) 601 (at [8]) (“Jimmy Chua”). In Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70, this Court reiterated (at [46]) the three-limb test which an accused has to satisfy to establish the defence of diminished responsibility: the ac......
-
G Krishnasamy Naidu v Public Prosecutor
...see, for example, Teo Keng Pong ([45] supra) at 339, [68]; most recently applied by the Court of Appeal in Took Leng How v PP [2006] 2 SLR 70 (“Took Leng 47 While the raison d’être for this burden of proof is never questioned, much controversy continues to cloud attempts to devise a working......
-
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik
...a necessary prerequisite for any legitimate and sustainable conviction: see, for example, Jagatheesan [[32] supra]; Took Leng How v PP [2006] 2 SLR 70. Indeed, the trial judge also alluded to this important principle in his judgment in respect of the second trial (see Mohammed Liton (No 2) ......
-
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Ali bin Johari
...PP [1996] 1 SLR 497 (“Thongbai Naklangdon”), Lau Lee Peng v PP [2000] 2 SLR 628 (“Lau Lee Peng”) and, most recently, Took Leng How v PP [2006] 2 SLR 70 (“Took Leng How”). In Oh Laye Koh, Yong Pung How CJ clarified incisively that intention and motive were both different elements (at 393–394......
Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
-
Rationalising the burden of establishing defences at criminal law in Singapore: Reconsidering Jayasena, in the wake of Eu Lim Hoklai
...n. 7, Jayasekara Aarchchilage Hemantha Neranjan Gamini v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 689. 116. See Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor [2006] 2 SLR 70; Syed Abdul Aziz, n. 85; Ramakrishnan s/o Ramayan v Prosecutor [1998] 3 SLR(R) 161, Jagatheesan, ibid.; Gamini, ibid. 117. Eu Lim Hoklai, n......
-
Indexes
...v Governor andCompany of the Bank of England (No. 6)[2004]UKHL 48, [2005]1 AC 610. . . . 66, 72, 76Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor [2006] 2SLR(R) 70. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264Totani vSouth Australia (2010)242 CLR 1 . . . 248Turner (Col.) and others, Trial ......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...applied by Singapore courts as a pre-requisite for a legitimate and sustained conviction, most recently in Took Leng How v PP[2006] 2 SLR 70. This principle might conceivably have constitutional status in Singapore in so far as it constitutes one of those fundamental rules of natural justic......
-
MURDER: THE ABNORMAL MIND — MAD OR JUST BAD
...or otherwise — why indeed can it not be dismissed? It is interesting that in the later Court of Appeal decision in Took Leng How v PP[2006] 2 SLR 70 where yet again the plea of diminished responsibility was rejected and the defence psychiatrist disbelieved, the portion of Choo J’s pronounce......
Get Started for Free
