Judgment Header
Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18
Loading…
[2012] SGCA 18
Court of Appeal of Singapore6 Mar 2012Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2010
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 12 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
“tructed Selamat to traffic in the Bundle is sufficient to sustain his conviction. This argument is said to be supported by the decision of this Court in Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 (“Chan Heng Kong”). The Prosecution therefore also submits that Liew Zheng Yang is inconsistent with that”
“In Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18, at [33]-[34], the Court of Appeal observed that although the meaning of abetment is not defined in the MDA, the word “abet” in s 12 of the MDA should have the same meaning as that word in s 107 of t”
“for the primary offender to carry out the conduct abetted (the mens rea) (see Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v Public Prosecutor [2018] 1 SLR 610 at [34] and Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [34]).”
“e” may well be liable under s 12 of the MDA for abetting or doing acts preparatory to, or in furtherance of, the commission of a trafficking offence. In Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [33]–[34], this court held that the term “abet” in s 12 of the MDA carries the same meaning as that wo”
“mens rea of intention for the primary offender to carry out the conduct abetted: Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 SLR 440 at [60]; Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [34].”
“(a) the actus reus of instigation, that is, “‘active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement’ of the primary offence”: Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [34]; and”
“Kiat [2016] 1 SLR 753 at [24]). It is also well-established that abetment under s 12 of the MDA carries the same meaning as in s 107 of the Penal Code (Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [33]).”
“We begin by considering briefly the law relating to abetment. In Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 (“Chan Heng Kong”), this Court observed at [33] that the word “abet” in s 12 of the MDA should bear the same meaning as it does in s 107 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). Where abetment”
“2012: Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] 2 SLR 49 (“Ramalingam”), Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor [2012] 2 SLR 1012 (“Quek Hock Lye”) and Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 (“Chan Heng Kong”). At the outset, we stress that none of these three cases concerned differing common in”
“ld Ridzuan and told Ridzuan to deal with [the Child]”. There was no “‘active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement’ of the primary offence”: Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [34]. In this context, Ridzuan’s understanding of what Azlin intended by her request to “deal with” th”
“In Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18, the Court of Appeal observed at [33], that the word “abet” in s 12 of the MDA should bear the same meaning as it does in s 107 of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). Section 107(1)(b)”
“The word “abets” in s 12 of the MDA bears the same meaning as it does in s 107 of the Penal Code (see Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [33]). Section 107 of the Penal Code reads:”
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
Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18
Case Metadata
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2010
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2012-03-06
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.