Judgment Header
Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226
Loading…
[2003] SGHC 226
General Division of the High Court of Singapore30 Sept 2003MA 73/2003
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 24 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
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had th”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had th”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had th”
“his case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 1 MLRH 671; [1998] 4 MLJ 210 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226; [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. PP (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had this to say - "”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFI”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra ), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had t”
“is case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 1 MLRH 671; [1998] 4 MLJ 210 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226; [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. PP (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had this to say - “I”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). 82 [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had”
“ce officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v PP [2003] SGHC 226; [2003] 4 SLR 374). 72 [48] In Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) ha”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had th”
“ss will be accepted by the court, see the cases of Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ali [1962] 1 MLJ 257, Dickson Levy a/l Maria George v Public Prosecutor [2018] MLJU 98, Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226. But this is not to say that in all cases the evidence of police witnesses should be accepted carte blan”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had th”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had th”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374).” [77] Oleh itu, Mahkamah ini berpendapat bahawa tiada sebab untuk SP4 mereka-reka ceri”
“e officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had thi”
“ficers in this 10 case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). 15 [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) ha”
“ant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty (see the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v Public Prosecutor [1998) 4 MLJ 210; [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226; [2003]. [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor, Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had this to say: I disa”
“ant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty (see the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v Public Prosecutor [1998) 4 MLJ 210; [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226; [2003]. [48] In Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor, Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had this to say: I disag”
“ant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty (see the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v Public Prosecutor [1998) 4 MLJ 210; [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226; [2003]. [48] In Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor, Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had this to say: I disag”
“ant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty (see the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v Public Prosecutor [1998) 4 MLJ 210; [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226; [2003]. [48] In Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor, Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had this to say: I disag”
“officers in this case to frame up the appellant with the impugned drugs, as they were just performing their duty. (See the cases of Mohd Ali Jaafar v. PP [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 208 and Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] SGHC 226 [2003] 4 SLR 374). [48] In Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor (supra), Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) had th”
“d or ulterior) is also relevant under the same section. 57) As to the ulterior motive raised by the defence, guidance could be found in words Yong Pong How CJ in Goh Han Heng v. PP [2003] 4 SLR 374, [2003] SGHC 226, which was cited with approval by our Court of Appeal in Dickson Levy Maria George v. Public Prosecutor [”
“am also guided by the Court of Appeal case of Dickson Levy Maria George v. PP [2018] CLJU 135 where Zawawi Salleh JCA (as His Lordship then was) cited with approval Goh Han Heng v. Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226 where Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) held that: "where the accused can show that the complainant has a moti”
“The HCJ also relied on the case of Dickson Levy a/l Maria George v Public Prosecutor [2018] MLJU 98, Zawawi Salleh JCA (as His Lordship then was) cited with approval Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226 where Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) held that: "where the accused can show that the complainant has a moti”
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
Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 226
Case Metadata
Case No: MA 73/2003
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2003-09-30
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.