How Poh Sun v PP
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 1991 |
| Date | 1991 |
| 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
13 cases
-
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis
...153 and Hasan v General Medical Council [2003] UKPC 5. (b) But, if it is applicable, then: (i) the Court of Appeal in How Poh Sun v PP [1991] SLR 220 (“How Poh Sun”), in fully adopting Sang ([44] supra), has severely emasculated the judicial discretion to exclude evidence, which discretion ......
-
Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore
...Cheng Swee Tiang v PP [1964] MLJ 291 (folld) Haw Tua Tau v PP [1981-1982] SLR (R) 133; [1980-1981] SLR 73 (refd) How Poh Sun v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 270; [1991] SLR 220 (folld) IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 (folld) Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v The......
- Goh Lai Wak v Public Prosecutor
-
Law Society of Singapore v Bay Puay Joo Lilian
...Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773 (refd) Chua Kian Kok v PP [1999] 1 SLR (R) 826; [1999] 2 SLR 542 (folld) How Poh Sun v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 270; [1991] SLR 220 (refd) Law Society of Singapore v Lau See-Jin Jeffrey [1999] 1 SLR (R) 724; [1999] 2 SLR 215 (distd) Law Society of Singapore......
Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...privacy considerations apply as there is no constitutional right to privacy in Singapore. So too, the Court of Appeal in How Poh Sun v PP[1991] SLR 220 manifested a deference towards the workings of the executive branch in declaring ‘[i]t is not the province of the court to consider whether......
-
THE CASE FOR DEPARTING FROM THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AGAINST PRIOR NEGOTIATIONS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS IN SINGAPORE
...Swee Tiang v Public Prosecutor[1964] MLJ 291; Ajmer Singh v Public Prosecutor[1985–1986] SLR(R) 1030; How Poh Sun v Public Prosecutor[1991] 2 SLR(R) 270; and SM Summit Holdings Ltd v Public Prosecutor[1997] 3 SLR(R) 138. 112Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 ......
-
ADMISSIBILITY AND THE DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
...in Ajmer Singh v Public Prosecutor[1985–1986] SLR(R) 1030, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal in How Poh Sun v Public Prosecutor[1991] 2 SLR(R) 270. 86 Although the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Dahalan bin Ladaewa[1995] 2 SLR(R) 124 excluded the statements, it did not cite R v Sang[1......
-
APPROACHES TO THE EVIDENCE ACT: THE JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A CODE
...1 SLR l43; PP v Teo Ai Nee & Anor[1995] 2 SLR 69; Chan Chi Pun v PP[l994] 2 SLR 6l; Chi Tin Hui v PP[1994] l SLR 778; How Poh Sun v PP[1991] SLR 220, [1991] 3 MLJ 216. 36 To the extent that its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. (See R v Sang[1980] AC 402.) 37 As when it woul......
Request a trial to view additional results