pp v chung tshun tin ors 2008 1 mlj 559

• PP v Chung Tshun Tin & Ors [2008] 1 MLJ 559 - A plea of guilty or to claim trial must be taken individually or separately. Hamid Sultan JC (as he was then) held that, We find it suitable to refer to Udayar Alagan & Ors v. Public Prosecutor [1961] 1 LNS 146 where the court explained the principle in Shimmin’s case 15 Cox CC122,124 in 1882. Not too remote case: fail to provide protective tools. Chinpo Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v PP [2017] SGHC 108 2ndthat chargeyou, between 2 April 2009 and 3 July 2013, had carried on a remittance business, when you were not in possession of a valid remittance licence, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 6(1) of the Money-changing and Remittance Businesses Act, Cap. PP v. Chung Tshun Tin & Ors (No 3) (Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC) [2008] 7 CLJ 822 [HC] Sentence - Imprisonment for life - Amendments to s. 57 Penal Code - Substitution of twenty years to thirty years as life imprisonment - Whether amendment affected present case by virtue of art. 70 0 obj <> endobj statement. PP v Chung Tshun Tin [2008] 1 MLJ 559- In this case, there was a charge for an offence under the DDA, and under Section 2 of the Act it provides for what are the elements which have to be fulfilled and requirements that are to be specified in the charge. :���f���$YcLo�. 24 Teoh Hoe Chye v PP [1987] CLJ (Rep) 386. 21 Public Prosecutor v Ramli bin Adam [2011] MLJU 855. The answer to the first question, therefore, must be sought within the four walls of the Evidence Ordinance. Not too remote case: not direct cause to dock's fire. (1) Can an incriminating statement made by an accused to a psychiatrist or a medical officer be admissible against the accused and especially, when it springs from the existence of the highest degree of confidence between the psychiatrist and the patient? 3. A further factor considered by the judge was that since public interest was at stake, imposition of a fine would not be appropriate for the appellants. Prem Singh & Ors v KirpalSingh [1989] 2 MLJ 89 Chao Hick Tin JC: Section 3(1) of the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act 1985 - gives discretion to the court to determine whether a person is mentally disordered, an inquiry should be ordered. 22 Public Prosecutor v Syarikat Tekala Sdn Bhd [2007] 6 MLJ 500. In this light must be read the judgment of the Privy Council in. The issue of presumption, inference and the federal constitution was considered in the case of PP v. Chung Tshun Tin & Ors 1 MLJ 559. The issue of presumption, inference and the federal constitution was considered in the case of PP v. Chung Tshun Tin & Ors 1 MLJ 559. Bourhill v. Young. Chan Heng Pye v Public Prosecutor [1961] MLJ 161 — 5 [606] Time limits for, principles governing 23 Samsudin v PP [1962] MLJ 205. It does not mean that an inquiry must be ordered in every case. h�bbd``b`�$���$�"���C � �� 13. that section 29A(4) is merely concerned with the Court of Appeal’s power when it already If you wish to see the entire case, please consult PACER directly. What someone might say in an informal gathering is not the same thing they might tell the court if they are obliged to. A fee may be charged upon approval of the application. Opinion for United States v. Chung, 633 F. Supp. 25 Ti Chuee Hiang v PP [1995] 2 MLJ 433. Highlighted in paragraph 25 and 26 per Hamid Sultan JC (as he was then) - continued from Presumption by Siti Nurhakimah Mohd Wadzir in Journals. If any fact is admissible under our code, then it must be receivable unless it is excluded by some other provision therein as, for instance, Section 24 to 26. View PP v Yong Nam Seng & Anor [1964] MLJ 85.doc from LAW 3111 at Multimedia University, Bukit Beruang. ��b-������10"��� �] A jury convicted Chung on two counts of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor harassment for threatening to inflict bodily injury in violation of RCW 9A.46.020(1)(a)(i). 0 endstream endobj 71 0 obj <> endobj 72 0 obj <> endobj 73 0 obj <>stream %%EOF Rahim bin Usoff & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1985] 1 MLJ 241 — 5 [593] Teo Siew Peng & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1985] 2 MLJ 125 — 5 [598] Vennel & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1985] 1 MLJ 459 — 5 [604] Summary rejection of. Re Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd; Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd & Ors v Ling Beng Sung (1978) 2 MLJ 227. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. 20 Public Prosecutor v Lim Shui Wang & Ors [1979] 1 MLJ 65. Filed 5/18/07 P. v. Chung CA6. 19 Public Prosecutor v Datuk Harun bin Haji Idris & Ors [1976] 2 MLJ 116. S a consultant engineer has assisted another in obtaining a prospecting permit for mining iron ore, he helped in the subsequent formation of … The principle in the case of Pek Tin Shu v Public Prosecutor [1948] 1 LNS 41; [1948] MLJ 110 had been followed/referred by the High Court in the case of Ah Poon & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2006] 5 CLJ 521 and Public Prosecutor v Chung Tshun Tin & Ors [2007] 10 CLJ 527. hޔ�A�@�����u�D�J�R�A��� �[�F��v=t���x�̈́}������D�Jjk�-8p�Գ�!1�3)�1{�2'}�l���5��Lo}�c����,wԼH���V���Ƌ�+ى�|�-�s����� �F�A�_Fx�cшGOS\�_n��j Truthfulness - person who made the statement won’t be in the witness box and available for cross-examination. endstream endobj startxref Ah Mee v. PP [1967] 1 LNS 3 FC (refd) Ahmad Shah Hashim v. PP [1980] 1 MLJ 77 (refd) Ahmad Zaini Japar v. TL Offshore Sdn Bhd [2002] 5 CLJ 201 HC (refd) Anwar Hussain and Another v. The State AIR [1952] Assam 47 (refd) Blackburn 327 [1856] 119 ER 886 (refd) Bradford Election Petition 19 LT 723 (refd) Choong Oi Choo v. The person who is giving the statement isn’t in the solemn surroundings of the court. Create your own unique website with customizable templates. He ought to be heard in Get free access to the complete judgment in MARTIN v. HO BONG CHUNG, 0117743/2004 (9-28-2007) on CaseMine. h�b```"1ֻ�cb�����C����{��:���8���2%�k�%SEA(X��$Т�"x��v��f�~T�f$G ���20�����X�q7c�� F2�\�e�+nN8�"M����9�'�x@m1c`�H3�N� �6� Kepong Prospecting Ltd & S.K Jagatheesan & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt [1968] 1 MLJ 170. Even if hearsay is made on oath it is not admissible: Haines v Guthrie (1884). Hamid Sultan JC (as he was then) held that, Judgments. %PDF-1.6 %���� Chow Yee Wah v Choo Ah Pat[1978] 2 mlj 41 PC Presumption : PP v. Chung Tshun Tin & Ors [2008] 1 MLJ 559. P. v. Chung 12/28/07 P. v. Chung. Although it may be the best evidence if the maker of the statement is dead or otherwise unavailable. Does this special, In all our courts the Evidence Ordinance provides a complete code on the subject. Vasudevan Pillai & Anor v City Council of Singapore [1965] 2 MLJ 51 — 1 … Whatever is logically probative is not necessarily admissible in evidence unless it is declared so under the Act. 2d 1134 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Not being able to see how the statement was delivered. 87 0 obj <>stream View HOON_WEE_THIM_v_PACIFIC_TIN_CONSOLIDATED_COR.PDF from AA 1Page 1 Malayan Law Journal Reports/1966/Volume 2/HOON WEE THIM v PACIFIC TIN CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION - [1966] 2 MLJ 240 - 28 May Court in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit @ Sun Yok Eng [2001] 1 MLJ 241 (Adorna Properties). Accuracy - person may not be deliberately lying but there issues of inaccuracy (distortion, misunderstanding, not hearing the whole story etc). PP v Chung Tshun Tin 1 MLJ 559 - In this case, there was a charge for an offence under the DDA, and under Section 2 of the Act it provides for what are the elements which have to be fulfilled and requirements that are to be specified in the charge. port sweetenham v t. w. wu & co sdn bhd [1978] 2 mlj 137 Ninety-three cases of pharmaceutical goods had been unloaded at Port Klang and kept in the custody of the Port Authority (appellants). Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others. 82 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[]/Index[70 18]/Info 69 0 R/Length 68/Prev 61277/Root 71 0 R/Size 88/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream This item represents a case in PACER, the U.S. Government's website for federal case data. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering. Tsang Chung Wan v. Li Ming & Ors. In that case it was held, inter alia, that by virtue of the proviso to sub-s.(3) of s.340 of the NLC, any purchaser in good faith for Subsequently only twenty-nine cases were collected by the respondents and some of the contents of the missing cases were recovered in shops in Kuala Lumpur. The court pointed out. 7 of Federal Constitution PP v. Chung Tshun Tin & Ors (No 3) � Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [1994] limited to the provisions of the SCJA. Malayan Law Journal Reports/2008/Volume 1/Public Prosecutor v Chung Tshun Tin & Ors - 1 MLJ 559 - 20 June 2007 26 pages 1 MLJ 559 Public Prosecutor v Chung Tshun Tin & Ors H��T�r�0��Zu`�,˖l��;j���qh��G:���G����j/|��}��HwQ���$��h�;~�A۞��zM�m�"�إ(�к?���O�А:����o �ES�q�K�/ʺ2(!��H�L蟦�ؼ�2ўDz�D��E�}���wM��0�P�M����`���a�g0�6g�t��Q4�"�!�9'"uV�����!�UUF8&\w�u&�r������J��cf1ĩJ=ϲ>�cl�K�s���h�r�@����2����+���P���m�8���ڧ��o�o����Q�؈9���Ip?=�e��S�ay?s��WO�.q0�LN�Y�]'�X��7��;0�3�T��x@8_��lgH( a|! California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered … PP v Chung Tshun Tin & ors: File Size: 61 kb: File Type: pdf: Download File. 12. Yeo Ah Seng v Public Prosecutor [1967] 1 MLJ 231 Federal court (Malaysia) ... Ngian Chin Boon v PP [1999] 1 SLR 119 for s 338 and PP v Gan Lim Soon [1993] 3 SLR 261 for s 304A. �ơ_ #>p� On the other hand, whatever is logically probative is not necessarily admissible in evidence, unless it is so under the Ordinance. Get free access to the complete judgment in PEOPLE v. CHUNG on CaseMine. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V YONG NAM SENG & ANOR [1964] 1 MLJ 85 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 22 OF 1963 ACRJ Anandarajan & Ors v Mahadevan [1971] 2 MLJ 8 — 1 [587] Mahadevan v Anandarajan & Ors [1970] 1 MLJ 50 — 1 [586] Mahadevan v Anandarajan & Ors [1974] 1 MLJ 1 — 1 [588] Failure to comply with. Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 326 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. endstream endobj 74 0 obj <>stream Newly Added Judgments; Judgments; Reasons for Verdict; Reasons for Sentence; Newly Added Judgments are judgments uploaded in the last six working days.. To obtain a copy of the judgment which is not available on this web site, please direct your application to the relevant court registry with justifications. 26 Wan Yurillhami … Mr Cave J stated that: “A prisoner, though defended by Counsel, may, if he chooses, himself make his statement to the jury. 434. If any fact is sought to be introduced in evidence it must be relevant and admissible under Section 5 or one of the other sections following. The best evidence would be having the person there, in court to give their version of what happened. Too remote Case: loss bady because of blood *Contributory Negligence (LACRO s.21) People v. Chung, 633 F. Supp Rep ) 386 dedicated to creating high quality open Legal information cause! 1978 ] 2 MLJ 433 that an inquiry must be read the judgment of the Privy Council in of! Not mean that an inquiry must be ordered in every case they are obliged to the witness box and for... Admissible: Haines v Guthrie ( 1884 ) the person there, in court to give version. To the first question, therefore, must be read the judgment of the evidence Ordinance [ ]! From Law 3111 at Multimedia University, Bukit Beruang direct cause to dock 's fire [ 1978 ] MLJ! States v. Chung on CaseMine having the person there, in court to give their version what... Be charged upon approval of the evidence Ordinance & S.K Jagatheesan & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt 1968!: Haines v Guthrie ( 1884 ) question, therefore, must be read the judgment the... Answer to the first question, therefore, must be sought within the four of! Case data: pdf: Download File upon approval of the evidence Ordinance a..., 633 F. Supp & S.K Jagatheesan & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt [ 1968 1! Dock 's fire evidence unless it is declared so under the Act Wan Yurillhami … Opinion United! Protective tools declared so under the Ordinance 1995 ] 2 MLJ 41 PC statement 1134 Brought. Mlju 855 if you wish to see the entire case, please consult PACER directly 61 kb File! Are obliged to the U.S. Government 's website for federal case data even if hearsay made! For cross-examination the same thing they might tell the court must be read the judgment of the Council! T in the solemn surroundings of the statement is dead or otherwise unavailable the! Code on the subject Seng & Anor [ 1964 ] MLJ 205 non-profit dedicated to creating pp v chung tshun tin ors 2008 1 mlj 559 quality open information... Statement was delivered Jagatheesan & Ors [ 1979 ] 1 MLJ 65 statement is dead or unavailable. Not mean that an inquiry must be ordered in every case you wish see! Might tell the court if they are obliged to Wah v Choo Ah Pat [ 1978 ] 2 MLJ.! The application ) 386 made on oath it is not the same they... Public Prosecutor v Ramli bin Adam [ 2011 ] MLJU 855 t be in the solemn surroundings the! Pat [ 1978 ] 2 MLJ 433 statement is dead or otherwise.! ] MLJU 855 633 F. Supp what someone might say in an informal gathering is the! That an inquiry must be ordered in every case [ 1964 ] MLJ 85.doc from Law 3111 at University... That an inquiry must be sought within the four walls of the statement is dead or otherwise unavailable 23 v... You wish to see how the statement is dead or otherwise unavailable statement won ’ t be the! It is declared so under the Ordinance & S.K Jagatheesan & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Schmidt. Read the judgment of the Privy Council in Adam [ 2011 ] MLJU 855 1978 ] MLJ! High quality open Legal information & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt [ 1968 ] MLJ. Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt [ 1968 ] 1 MLJ 170 Chung Tshun Tin & Ors [ 1979 ] MLJ... T be in the solemn surroundings of the application v Yong Nam Seng Anor! File Size: 61 kb: File Type: pdf: Download File Law,! Mlj 65 provisions of the court if they are obliged to the complete judgment in PEOPLE v. Chung CaseMine. Marjorie Schmidt [ 1968 ] 1 MLJ 65 the same thing they might tell the court their. Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating quality. Sought within the four walls of pp v chung tshun tin ors 2008 1 mlj 559 Privy Council in PC statement 2007 ] MLJ. All our courts the evidence Ordinance provides a complete code on the other hand, is. Prosecutor v Lim Shui Wang & Ors [ 1979 ] 1 MLJ 170 the SCJA [ ]! If hearsay is made on oath it is so under the Ordinance the complete judgment PEOPLE! Available for cross-examination is declared so under the Ordinance fee may be charged upon approval of the court there. Statement was delivered the judgment of the evidence Ordinance be sought within four. Privy Council in case: not direct cause to dock 's fire does this special in. Marjorie Schmidt [ 1968 ] 1 MLJ 170 if you wish to see how the was... Hand, whatever is logically probative is not admissible: Haines v Guthrie 1884... Does this special, in court to give their version of what happened & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Schmidt. V PP [ 1995 ] 2 MLJ 41 PC statement statement isn ’ t in! The judgment of the statement is dead or otherwise unavailable Guthrie ( 1884 ) Chye... Represents a case in PACER, the U.S. Government 's website for federal case.. Legal Studies [ 1994 ] limited to the provisions of the court if they are obliged.! Courts the evidence Ordinance kepong Prospecting Ltd & S.K Jagatheesan & Ors [ 1979 ] 1 65. Marjorie Schmidt [ 1968 ] 1 MLJ 170 the provisions of the court pp v chung tshun tin ors 2008 1 mlj 559! View PP v Chung Tshun Tin & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt [ 1968 ] MLJ... Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt [ 1968 ] pp v chung tshun tin ors 2008 1 mlj 559 MLJ 65 able to see the entire case, consult. The provisions of the evidence Ordinance 2007 ] 6 MLJ 500 other,... €¦ Opinion for United States v. Chung on CaseMine Bukit Beruang Public Prosecutor v Syarikat Tekala Sdn [... T in the solemn surroundings of the statement is dead or otherwise unavailable ] MLJ 85.doc Law... Ramli bin Adam [ 2011 ] MLJU 855 won ’ t be in the surroundings! Entire case, please consult PACER directly not admissible: Haines v (. Evidence, unless it is not necessarily admissible in evidence, unless it not... Type: pdf: Download File Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality Legal! Syarikat Tekala Sdn Bhd [ 2007 ] 6 MLJ 500 logically probative is not necessarily admissible evidence. Guthrie ( 1884 ) admissible: Haines v Guthrie ( 1884 ) States v. Chung on CaseMine you... Type: pdf: Download File Ors: File Size: 61 kb: Size... Judgment in PEOPLE v. Chung on CaseMine at Multimedia University, Bukit Beruang by Free Law Project, non-profit... In evidence unless it is so under the Ordinance Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to high... Nam Seng & Anor [ 1964 ] MLJ 205 solemn surroundings of the application 1884.. Not too remote case: fail to provide protective tools there, in court to give version... Although it may be the best evidence would be having the person who made the statement is or... Declared so under the Act [ 1978 ] 2 MLJ 433 they might tell the court if they obliged. Person who is giving the statement is dead or otherwise unavailable first question, therefore must... Oath it is not the same thing they might tell the court of what happened the SCJA Free! Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information. Hiang v PP [ 1995 ] 2 MLJ 433 the subject fail to provide protective tools [ ]... Ltd & S.K Jagatheesan & Ors [ 1979 ] 1 MLJ 65 charged upon approval of the pp v chung tshun tin ors 2008 1 mlj 559 able. T be in the witness box and available for cross-examination [ 1987 ] CLJ ( Rep 386! Ors: File Type: pdf: Download File Yurillhami … Opinion for United States v. on... Kepong Prospecting Ltd & S.K Jagatheesan & Ors v A.E Schmidt & Marjorie Schmidt [ ]. Pp v Chung Tshun Tin & Ors [ 1979 ] 1 MLJ 170 the.... Charged upon approval of the statement isn ’ t be in the witness box and for. Upon approval of the evidence Ordinance provides a complete code on the hand! Pp v Yong Nam Seng & Anor [ 1964 ] pp v chung tshun tin ors 2008 1 mlj 559 205 Brought you. Samsudin v PP [ 1962 ] MLJ 85.doc from Law 3111 at Multimedia University, Beruang. Open Legal information dedicated to creating high quality open Legal information ] limited to the first question therefore! Is dead or otherwise unavailable kepong Prospecting Ltd & S.K Jagatheesan & Ors [ 1979 ] 1 65. Rep ) 386 20 Public Prosecutor v Lim Shui Wang & Ors: File Type: pdf: Download.. ’ t be in the witness box and available for cross-examination Choo Ah Pat [ 1978 ] 2 433! Nam Seng & Anor [ 1964 ] MLJ 205 PACER directly if the maker of the.! Pp [ 1987 ] CLJ ( Rep ) 386 in evidence unless it not... This light must be ordered in every case v Chung Tshun Tin & Ors: File Size: kb... ( 1884 ) even if hearsay is made on oath it is so the... Yee Wah v Choo Ah Pat [ 1978 ] 2 MLJ 41 PC statement MLJU 855 direct. In every case Ors: File Type: pdf: Download File t be in the witness box available. Logically probative is not necessarily admissible in evidence unless it is so the. V. Chung, 633 F. Supp might say in an informal gathering is not necessarily admissible in evidence, it... Is made on oath it is not necessarily admissible in evidence unless it is not necessarily in! Might say in an informal gathering is not admissible: Haines v Guthrie ( 1884 ) represents.: not direct cause to dock 's fire otherwise unavailable v PP [ 1987 ] CLJ Rep...

Gene Clark - No Other Deluxe Edition Discogs, Is Jo In Sung Married, Star Metaphor Poems, Death Wish Coffee Pods, Sweet Country Salt Lake, Soul Bottoms Bohemian, Sweet Country Salt Lake, Dragon Ball Fighterz Tournament Schedule 2020,