[2003] SGCA 17

“The case of Ng Beng Siang and others v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGCA 17 (“Ng Beng Siang”), also relied on by the Prosecution, provided guidance in the application of these factors. In particular, it identified two situations when the test would likely be passed: first, w”

“be admissible pertained to previous transactions which also involved Ranjit and Farid, the co-accused persons (at [12]). Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Ng Beng Siang and others v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGCA 17 (“Ng Beng Siang”), in finding that the previous incident of drug trafficking alluded to in a statement re”

“its prejudicial effect. In this inquiry, the cogency, strength of inference the evidence provides and relevance of the evidence should be considered: see Ng Beng Siang and others v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGCA 17 at [40]–[42]; Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and another [2017] 3 SLR 66 at [17]–[19]”

“Prosecutor v Beh Chew Boo [2020] SGHC 33 at [10]–[17]; cf Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and another [2017] 3 SLR 66 at [12]–[13] and Ng Beng Siang and others v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGCA 17 at [39]–[41]). Ultimately, the inquiry on the admissibility and weight to be placed on such statements is”

“of guilt if the criteria established in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 (“Lucas”), classically referred to as the Lucas criteria, were met. Lucas was approved in Ng Beng Siang and others v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGCA 17 at [52]. The Lucas criteria are that: (a) the lie told out of court must be deliberate; (b) it must relate”