Judgment Header
Seah Hock Thiam v Public Prosecutor [2013] SGHC 136
Loading…
[2013] SGHC 136
General Division of the High Court of Singapore19 Jul 2013Magistrate's Appeal No 293 of 2013
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 3 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
“course of justice is relevant. The more serious it is, the more serious the act of perverting the course of justice will be (see the decision of the High Court in Seah Hock Thiam v Public Prosecutor [2013] SGHC 136 at [8]). Relatedly, the effect of the attempt to pervert the course of justice is also relevant, as is th”
“that the accused in question did acts to either obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice, and that such acts were carried out intentionally. In Seah Hock Thiam v Public Prosecutor [2013] SGHC 136 (“Seah Hock Thiam”), Choo Han Teck J observed at [6] that the words “obstructs”, “prevents”, “perverts” a”
“t should eschew generalisations and assess each case on its own facts, taking into account all the relevant factors in assessing the culpability of an offender. In Seah Hock Thiam v Public Prosecutor [2013] SGHC 136, the offender asked his personal driver to “take care of it”, referring to parking offences committed by”
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
Seah Hock Thiam v Public Prosecutor [2013] SGHC 136
Case Metadata
Case No: Magistrate's Appeal No 293 of 2013
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2013-07-19
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.