[2015] SGHC 199

“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]).”