Judgment Header
Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126
Court DecisionSGHC
[2015] SGHC 126
[2015] SGHC 126
General Division of the High Court of Singapore8 May 2015Criminal Case No 19 of 2015
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 11 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
11Later cases and laws citing this decision
“ffence” (emphasis added), and to the cases of Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another [2013] 3 SLR 734 (“Abdul Haleem”) and Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 (“Christeen d/o Jayamany”).”
“nt in the offence” [emphasis added]. At the end of the day, the determination of whether an offender is a courier necessarily involves a fact-specific inquiry: PP v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 at [68].”
“sue of whether an offender was a mere courier under s 33B(2)(a) was distinct from whether he had rendered substantive assistance to the CNB: see Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 (“Christeen”) at [46].”
“een cited in a number of decisions of the High Court (see Public Prosecutor v Azahari bin Ahmad and another [2016] SGHC 101 (“Azahari”) at [34], Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 (“Christeen”) at [68] and Public Prosecutor v Suhaimi bin Said [2017] SGHC 86 (“Suhaimi”) at [23]).”
“cision-making powers which the accused has; and (e) whether the accused receives a distinct form of benefit for performing his extra functions. (Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 at [68]).”
Show 6 moreShow fewer
“Both the requirements in s 33B(2)(a) and s 33B(2)(b) must be satisfied in order for an accused to be eligible to be sentenced under s 33B(1)(a) of the MDA (PP v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 (“Christeen”) at [46]).”
“Particular reliance was placed by defence counsel on Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 (“Christeen”), where Tay Yong Kwang J (as Tay JA then was) distilled the following factors which inform the analysis of whether an accused was a mere “courier” (at [68]):”
“The facts relating to the Applicant’s case were summarised by the trial judge (“the Trial Judge”) at [2]–[17] of Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 (“Datchinamurthy (HC)”).”
“nt was not found by the trial judge to have been acting as a mere courier, he was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty on 15 April 2015 (see Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 at [88]). His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed on 5 February 2016. On 3 February 202”
“death sentence after being convicted of trafficking in a quantity of drugs exceeding the threshold for the imposition of capital punishment: see Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126. Gobi and Datchinamurthy sought (amongst other orders) a prohibitory order to stay their executions in t”
“015, Datchinamurthy was convicted of trafficking in diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA and was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty (see Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another [2015] SGHC 126 at [44] and [88]). His conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal in CA/CCA 8/2015 (“CCA 8”) on 5 Febr”
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 19 of 2015
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-05-08
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.