Jones v R

JurisdictionSingapore
Date1948
Year1948
CourtSupreme Court (Singapore)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
3 cases
  • Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 Abril 1998
    ...It is for the Public Prosecutor to decide later whether in such a case the witness should be prosecuted for perjury. In Jones v R [1948] MLJ 182 , Murray-Aynsley CJ said at p 182: These statements can only be used to impeach the credit of the witnesses. That is to say, when these statements......
  • Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 Abril 1998
    ...It is for the Public Prosecutor to decide later whether in such a case the witness should be prosecuted for perjury. In Jones v R [1948] MLJ 182 , Murray-Aynsley CJ said at p 182: These statements can only be used to impeach the credit of the witnesses. That is to say, when these statements......
  • Public Prosecutor v Somwang Phatthanasaeng
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 27 Marzo 1992
    ...judges did not rely on the s 121 statements as substantive evidence against the accused on any crucial issue of fact: at [36]. Jones v R [1948] MLJ 182 (folld) Muthusamy v PP [1948] MLJ 57 (folld) PP v Wong Yee Sen [1990] 1 MLJ 187 (folld) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)s 121 ......

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