Chan Kin Choi v PP
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
| Year | 1991 |
| Date | 1991 |
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
9 cases
- Public Prosecutor v Mansor Md. Rashid
- PP; Tang Tuck Wah
- Sathya Vello v Public Prosecutor
-
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor
...was approved and applied by the House of Lords in R v Sharp [1981] 1 All ER 65 and by this court in Chan Kim Choi v PP [1991] SLR 34 [1991] 1 MLJ 260 . In the latter case, this court added the rider that in Singapore the deciders of fact in a criminal trial are judges and judicial officers ......
Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
-
STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 122 (6) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC): SOME OBSERVATIONS
...appears initially to be unqualified, the explanation, being produced at a much later stage of questioning. 13 [1990] Crim. L. R. 341. 14 [1991] 1 MLJ 260. Also see an interesting article by Stanley Yeo, ‘The Admissibility and Effect of Exculpatory Statements in Criminal Cases’[1981] 2 MLJ 1......
-
CO-ACCUSED CONFESSIONS: THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY
...s 511 of the Penal Code entitles the attemptor to a 50% discount for imprisonment. 49 [1993] 2 SLR 9. 50 Supra, note 9. 51 Chan Kin Choi [1991] 1 MLJ 260. 52 This provision declares “any statement, whether it amount to a confession or not” to be “admissible at his trial in evidence”. The im......