Judgment Header
Public Prosecutor v Khartik Jasudass and another [2015] SGHC 199
Loading…
[2015] SGHC 199
General Division of the High Court of Singapore3 Aug 2015Criminal Case No 22 of 2015
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 6 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
“In Public Prosecutor v Khartik Jasudass and another [2015] SGHC 199 (at [57] and [58]), Hoo Sheau Peng JC identified the differences between the doctrine of wilful blindness and the determination of whether the accused can reasonably be expected to have known the nat”
“the Court of Appeal in Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 1156 (at [30]), as recently reiterated by Hoo Sheau Peng JC in Public Prosecutor v Khartik Jasudass and another [2015] SGHC 199 and Chan Seng Onn J in Public Prosecutor v Mohsen bin Na’im [2016] SGHC 150. Where wilful blindness has b”
“Similarly, the two accused persons failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption in PP v Khartik Jasudass and another [2015] SGHC 199 (“Khartik Jasudass”). The High Court noted that the accused persons knew from their supplier, one “Raja”, that they were transporting drugs. They should have suspected Raja’s assurances since”
“bsequently sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The decision of the High Court judge (the “Judge”) is found in Public Prosecutor v Khartik Jasudass and Puniyamurthy A/L Maruthai [2015] SGHC 199 (the “Judgment”).”
“g Yoke Wah [1995] SGHC 213; Teo Hee Heng v Public Prosecutor [2000] 2 SLR(R) 351 at [11]; Public Prosecutor v Siva a/l Sannasi [2015] SGHC 73 at [23]; Public Prosecutor v Khartik Jasudass and another [2015] SGHC 199 at [98]–[99]).”
“The relevant facts and procedural history are found in the trial Judge’s decision in Public Prosecutor v Khartik Jasudass [2015] SGHC 199 (“Khartik (Trial)”) and in Khartik (CM 19). I set out the pertinent facts below.”
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
Public Prosecutor v Khartik Jasudass and another [2015] SGHC 199
Case Metadata
Case No: Criminal Case No 22 of 2015
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-08-03
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.