Judgment Header
Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 38
Loading…
[2011] SGCA 38
Court of Appeal of Singapore2 Aug 2011Criminal Appeal No 26 of 2010
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 7 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“ause the Prosecution wished to rely on the presumption concerning trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA, and this could only be done if actual possession was proved: Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 38 (“Tang”) at [18]–[19], citing this court’s earlier decision in Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public”
“Since there cannot be a reliance on the presumptions found in both ss 17 and 18 of the MDA (see Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 38 at [18]–[19], citing the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public Prosecutor [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 at [8] and [10]), element (c) must be”
“aving regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public Prosecutor [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 (“Mohd Halmi”), which was adopted in Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 38, and more recently also in Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2017] 1 SLR”
“avail itself of the presumption concerning trafficking was subject to the rule that the Prosecution may not rely on both the presumptions in ss 17 and 18 of the MDA conjunctively (Tang Hai Liang v PP [2011] SGCA 38 at [18]–[19]).”
“Mohd Halmi has since been cited and applied by both the Court of Appeal (see Tang Hai Liang v PP [2011] SGCA 38 at [18]–[19]) and the High Court (see PP v Lim Boon Hiong and another [2010] 4 SLR 696 at [58]; PP v Tan Lye Heng [2017] 5 SLR 564 at [71]; PP v Mohd Aziz bin Hussain [2018] SGHC 19 at [66]–[67]). As”
“es beginning with Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public Prosecutor [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548, that these two presumptions cannot be applied in the same case (see also Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 38 at [18]–[19] and Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGCA 41 at [48]). Notwithstanding certai”
“and another v Public Prosecutor [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 – has held that the presumptions under the two provisions cannot be applied together in the same case (see also Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 38 at [18]–[19]; Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGCA 41 at [48]; Zainal at [37]–[52]; and Ra”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 38
Case Metadata
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 26 of 2010
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2011-08-02
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.