Abdullah v R
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Date | 1954 |
| Year | 1954 |
| Court | Court 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
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
2 cases
-
Leu Xing-Long v Public Prosecutor
...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
...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
...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......