Judgment Header
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 2
Loading…
[2012] SGCA 2
Court of Appeal of Singapore10 Jan 2012Criminal Motion No 60 of 2011
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 2 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
“o derived his power from the provision of its Constitution (Art. 35(8)) which, apart from the exceptions, is worded similar to our Art. 145(3). Cases such as Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 2, Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 25 and Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor [2001]”
“above-mentioned view expressed in Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guan Neo Phyllis (supra) was later endorsed in the landmark Singapore Court of Appeal case of Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 2. [34] After referring to the similar positions in two other commonwealth jurisdictions, namely Canada and”
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
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 2
Case Metadata
Case No: Criminal Motion No 60 of 2011
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2012-01-10
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.