Judgment Header
Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGHC 287
Loading…
[2015] SGHC 287
General Division of the High Court of Singapore3 Nov 2015Criminal Motion No 17 of 2015
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
This decision has been distinguished in a later judgment and cited in 1 other later decision. Confirm it is still good law before relying on it.
Detected automatically from later judgments; not a substitute for a citator check.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“isteen collected money and relayed messages, these actions were incidental to her transporting and delivering the drugs: see Zainudin, at [61]–[64]. Indeed, in Public Prosecutor v Rosman bin Abdullah [2015] SGHC 287, at [18], Tay J referred to his earlier Christeen guidelines and distinguished Rosman’s role on the foot”
“the Public Prosecutor issues a certificate to affirm that he has substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) in disrupting drug activities. In Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGHC 287 (“the GD”), the High Court judge (“the Judge”) held that the Appellant had not fulfilled the two requirem”
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
Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGHC 287
Case Metadata
Case No: Criminal Motion No 17 of 2015
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-11-03
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.