Abdullah v R

JurisdictionSingapore
Date1954
Year1954
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
2 cases
  • Leu Xing-Long v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 octobre 2014
    ...person. It may be viewed by many as immoral but it remains permissible by law. Counsel referred to the following passage in Abdullah v R [1954] MLJ 195: What the law does not forbid, it allows, and what a law allows is I think justified by law. I do not think it possible to have an intermed......
  • Leu Xing-Long v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 octobre 2014
    ...person. It may be viewed by many as immoral but it remains permissible by law. Counsel referred to the following passage in Abdullah v R [1954] MLJ 195: What the law does not forbid, it allows, and what a law allows is I think justified by law. I do not think it possible to have an intermed......
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 décembre 2003
    ...B). Under the Penal Code, the accused can rely on the defence of mistake if his actions were ‘justified by law’. We learnt in Abdullah v R[1954] MLJ 195 that just because something is immoral (but not illegal) does not mean that it is not ‘justified by law’. 10.4 What the present case shows......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT