Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date01 February 2005
Date01 February 2005
Docket NumberCriminal Revision No 1 of 2005,
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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
11 cases
  • PlanAssure PAC (formerly known as Patrick Lee PAC) v Gaelic Inns Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 30 August 2007
    ...fogginess as to the accuracy and reliability of the figures adopted in the criminal proceedings. In Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PP [2005] 1 SLR 622 (“Mohamad Hiraz Hassim”), the court cautioned against the blanket acceptance of an admission by an accused where the value of certain goods was in q......
  • Thong Sing Hock v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 March 2009
    ...it strikes at the very essence of the exercise of judicial power (see Ang Poh Chuan v PP [1996] 1 SLR 326, Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PP [2005] 1 SLR 622). However, it has to be kept in mind that Parliament has conferred this power on the High Court so as to ensure that no potential cases of se......
  • Megastar Entertainment Pte Ltd and Another v Odex Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 April 2005
    ...that strikes at its basis as an exercise of judicial power by the court below”. Similarly, I made it clear in Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PP [2005] 1 SLR 622 at [11] that “the court’s powers of revision are exercised sparingly, and only if the court is satisfied that some serious injustice has b......
  • Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 24 January 2007
    ...2 MLJ 243 (refd) Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings Ltd [2000] 1 SLR (R) 423; [2000] 2 SLR 137 (folld) Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PP [2005] 1 SLR (R) 622; [2005] 1 SLR 622 (refd) Mohamed Razip v PP [1987] SLR (R) 525; [1987] SLR 142 (folld) Mohamed Saleem Ismail, Re [1987] SLR (R) 380; [1987] ......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • Revenue and Tax Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...and fines amounting to $216,000 in total were imposed. Valuation for goods and services tax purposes 20.58 In Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PP[2005] 1 SLR 622, the appellant was found guilty of evading GST by bringing 66 lots of gemstones from Bangkok into Singapore for sale to a Singapore client.......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...of the sentences to run consecutively. Goods and services tax offences — pegging fine at median level 11.39 In Mohamed Hiraz Hassim v PP[2005] 1 SLR 622, the appellant under-declared the value of 66 lots of gemstones which he imported into Singapore, by producing an invoice purporting to va......