Judgment Header
Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 67
Court DecisionSGCA
[2015] SGCA 67
[2015] SGCA 67
Court of Appeal of Singapore30 Nov 2015Criminal Motion No 21 of 2015
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 7 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
7Later cases and laws citing this decision
“and Licensee of the Higher Learning Institution Lincoln University College) [2023] CLJU 2337 Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd v. Juang Setia Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 MLJ 545 Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd [2015] SGCA 67 Tritonia Shipping Inc v South Nelson Forest Products Corp [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 114 Uzma Engineering Sdn B”
“ursuant to s 397(1) of the CPC. One of the questions concerned the threshold test for the Prosecution to demonstrate compliance with its Kadar obligation. In Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 67 (“Winston Lee (CA)”), the Court of Appeal endorsed Chan J’s formulation of the test in the following term”
“closure under Kadar (No 1), and it is for the appellants to satisfy the court that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the duty has been breached (Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 67 at [8]–[12]). The mere fact that the charges had been amended did not constitute such grounds.”
“For completeness, I note that the Respondent relies on Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 67 (“Lee Siew Boon”) to argue that every application of an objective test in a specific context is not a question of law. However, this does not seem to be the proper interpretation of the case. Lee Sie”
“ses its discretion in this manner (see, eg, the decisions of this court in Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 859 at [13]; James Raj at [15]; and Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 67 at [7]).”
Show 2 moreShow fewer
“The law with respect to when leave should be granted under s 397(1) of the CPC is clear and was recently affirmed by this court in Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 67 (“Winston Lee”) at [6]. Four conditions must be satisfied before leave can be granted:”
“The law with respect to the granting of leave under s 397(1) of the CPC is uncontroversial and was recently affirmed by this court in Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 67 at [6] as well as Huang Liping v Public Prosecutor [2016] 4 SLR 716 at [8]. Four conditions must be satisfied before leave can be”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Criminal Motion No 21 of 2015
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-11-30
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.