Wu Tze Kok v Public Prosecutor
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 10 October 2001 |
| Date | 10 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | Magistrate's Appeal No 166 of 2001 |
| Court | High Court (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
5 cases
-
Public Prosecutor v Chee Kok Yeong
...from evading the fines, not to punish those who genuinely cannot pay: also see Low Meng Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR 569, Wu Tze Kok v PP [2001] 4 SLR 645. The total default sentence in Chia Kah Boon would have been a crushing 203 months for a total fine of $4.6 million if the default sentences w......
-
Sim Chye Men v Public Prosecutor
...from evading the fines, not to punish those who genuinely cannot pay: also see Low Meng Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR 569, Wu Tze Kok v PP [2001] 4 SLR 645. Default sentences must however still be sufficient to deter the offender from evading payment of the fines, and be adequate punishment for no......
-
Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun
...of the payment of funds imposed: Low Meng Chay v Public Prosecutor [1993] 1 SLR(R) 46 at [13] and Wu Tze Kok v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR(R) 350 at [10] (Tan Yock Lin and S. Chandra Mohan, Criminal Procedure (LexisNexis: 2019; Binder 3, Chapter XVII: Sentencing) at [2154]). The Accused’......
-
Lean Cheong Keng v Public Prosecutor
...As default sentences are meant to prevent offenders from evading the fines, (see Low Meng Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR 569 and Wu Tze Kok v PP [2001] 4 SLR 645), I also ordered all the default sentences to run consecutively. In the event that the Accused does not pay the fine of $1 million, he wo......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...was accordingly dismissed. Refunding a fine and imposing a default term of imprisonment in substitution 11.15 In Wu Tze Kok v PP[2001] 4 SLR 645, the appellant was charged in the subordinate court for two traffic offences. As the appellant failed to turn up in court when he was mandated to ......