Judgment Header
Public Prosecutor v V Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160
Court DecisionSGHC
[2005] SGHC 160
[2005] SGHC 160
General Division of the High Court of Singapore30 Aug 2005CC 6/2005
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
“[2015] 9 MLJ 674, HC]. As rape is the most grave of all sexual offences, general deterrence is called for [PPv Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160 at [54]-[55]]. In Mohd Noran v PP [1991] 2 SLR(R) 867, the Singapore Court of Appeal observed that, as a general rule, neither probation nor reformative training is suitable in cases”
“equation in order to appropriately reflect the gravity of the offences perpetrated”. As rape is the most grave of all sexual offences, general deterrence is called for: Public Prosecutor v Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160 at [54]–[55]. Further, specific deterrence should also be applicable, in light of the calculated and deli”
“considerations were retribution for the heinous conduct of the Accused, as well as the general deterrence of similar acts. As noted by V K Rajah J (as he then was) in Public Prosecutor v V Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160:”
“The Prosecution cited Public Prosecutor v Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160, R v Stuckless (1998) 127 CCC (3d) 225 and AQW v Public Prosecutor [2015] 4 SLR 150 in support of their submission that the harm caused in this case was an aggravating factor. Essentially, these case”
“ble right to choose how and who she would or would not have sex with that struck at the very heart of why rape was rightly regarded as a heinous offence: see generally Public Prosecutor v V Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160 at [54].”
Show 2 moreShow fewer
“fence to be made out (see Stanley Yeo, Neil Morgan and Chan Wing Cheong, Criminal Law in Singapore (LexisNexis, 2022) (“Criminal Law in Singapore”) at para 12.53, citing Public Prosecutor v Murugesan [2005] SGHC 160). Rather, DNA evidence often serves as evidence that corroborates the testimony of the victims regarding”
“draconian sentence which primarily encapsulated retribution and deterrence was ineluctably required and would invariably be meted out to an offender like the accused (Public Prosecutor v V Murusegan [2005] SGHC 160 at [54]–[55]). The victim’s relationships with her grandmother and brother also deteriorated as they blam”
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: CC 6/2005
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2005-08-30
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.