Judgment Header
Public Prosecutor v Ng Pen Tine and Another [2009] SGHC 230
Court DecisionSGHC
[2009] SGHC 230
[2009] SGHC 230
General Division of the High Court of Singapore14 Oct 2009CC 20/2009
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 3 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
3Later cases and laws citing this decision
“ucement or promise, and this must subjectively operate on the mind of the particular accused: Abdul Malik bin Abdul Jamil v PP [2002] 1 SLR(R) 591 at [17]; Public Prosecutor v Ng Pen Tine and another [2009] SGHC 230 at [18]. In respect of an allegation of drug withdrawal, the relevant test is that to render a statement”
“ge that the object in question was a controlled drug or contained controlled drugs. The former is a critical part of proving the element of possession (see Public Prosecutor v Ng Pen Tine and Another [2009] SGHC 230 at [103]), whereas the latter is only relevant to the knowledge of the nature of the drug (ie, part of t”
“submitted that the Judge wrongly required that each message from “SoundsoFaiths Hurt” specifically threaten death. The appellant relied on the decision of Public Prosecutor v Ng Pen Tine and Another [2009] SGHC 230 (“Ng Pen Tine”) for the proposition that an accused should be able to avail himself of the defence of dur”
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 20/2009
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2009-10-14
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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.