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
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
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
2 cases
-
Leu Xing-Long v PP
...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......