Judgment Header
Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Bin [2011] SGHC 212
Court DecisionSGHC
[2011] SGHC 212
[2011] SGHC 212
General Division of the High Court of Singapore21 Sept 2011Criminal Case No 21 of 2011
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 6 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
6Later cases and laws citing this decision
“that this sentence was broadly in line with case precedents, which generally provided for about ten to 13 years’ imprisonment and ten to 15 strokes of the cane (see Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Bin [2011] SGHC 212, Public Prosecutor v Hang Tuah bin Jumaat [2013] SGHC 28, Public Prosecutor v Low Jin Long (CC 33/2014, u”
“(a) Display of evident remorse: This can be demonstrated by, among other things, cooperation with the police. In Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Bin [2011] SGHC 212 (“Wang Jian Bin”), the court gave the offender credit for apologising after the incident, though it held that the mitigatory value of this was somewhat atten”
“In Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Bin [2011] SGHC 212, the High Court mentioned that it had taken into consideration the youth of the accused person, who was 23 at the time of the offence. However, in the totality of the circumstances pertaining to the”
“son has shown in a letter of apology which he wrote to his wife after the offence. The accused person’s contrition is also corroborated by his daughter. The court in Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Bin [2011] SGHC 212 held that some credit can be given for the accused person’s remorse, which can be reflected by a genuine”
“encing objectives of deterrence and rehabilitation, as per Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449 (“Terence Ng”). In this regard, I note that both Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Bin [2011] SGHC 212 (“Wang Jian Bin”) and Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2016] 5 SLR 636 (“Haliff”
Show 1 moreShow fewer
“u was cognisant of the threats made by the Accused – much less that Ku felt any kind of distress or fear as a result of such threats. This is unlike the situation in Public Prosecutor v Wang Jian Bin [2011] SGHC 212 (“Wang Jian Bin”), for example, where the court held (at [40]) that an aggravating factor in that case w”
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 Case No 21 of 2011
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2011-09-21
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.