Cheng Swee Tiang v PP

JurisdictionMalaysia
CourtHigh Court (Malaysia)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
20 cases
  • PP v Seridaran
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1984
  • Muhammad bin Kadar v PP
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 5 July 2011
    ...value. This being the overarching principle of the EA, we are of the view that in so far as the High Court in Cheng Swee Tiang [v PP [1964] MLJ 291] recognised a discretion to exclude relevant evidence on the ground of unfairness to the accused, such a proposition is not entirely consonant ......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 December 2007
    ...of the offence should be excluded (“the Summit exception”). Counsel for the respondent argued, relying on Cheng Swee Tiang v PP [1964] MLJ 291 (“Cheng Swee Tiang”) as well as the Summit exception, that the evidence obtained by Jenny in the present case should be excluded as it operated unfa......
  • Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 6 September 2007
    ...means of an unlawful act (ie, an illegal search). No issue of instigation or inducement arose in that case. (b) In Cheng Swee Tiang v PP [1964] MLJ 291, the High Court (comprising three judges) dealt with the case as one concerning illegally obtained evidence, although the police had a vali......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • THE COURT'S DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES AND EMERGING IMPLICATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL SPHERE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...(LexisNexis, 5th Ed, 2015) at paras 6.056–6.059. 86Ie, since the judgment of the High Court in Cheng Swee Tiang v Public Prosecutor[1964] MLJ 291 (see para 4 above). 87ANB v ANC[2015] 5 SLR 522 at [27]–[31]. 88ANB v ANC[2015] 5 SLR 522 at [27]–[31]. 89 As is evident from the heading above p......
  • THE CASE FOR DEPARTING FROM THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AGAINST PRIOR NEGOTIATIONS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...t p 1573. 110Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 at [126]. 111 See Cheng Swee Tiang v Public Prosecutor[1964] MLJ 291; Ajmer Singh v Public Prosecutor[1985–1986] SLR(R) 1030; How Poh Sun v Public Prosecutor[1991] 2 SLR(R) 270; and SM Summit Holdings Ltd v Publ......
  • ADMISSIBILITY AND THE DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...at [126]). It referred to Chan Chi Pun v Public Prosecutor[1994] 1 SLR(R) 654, which approved Cheng Swee Tiang v Public Prosecutor[1964] MLJ 291 (Phyllis at [103]). For a fuller account of the approach in Phyllis to former authorities, see Jeffrey Pinsler, Evidence and the Litigation Proces......
  • APPROACHES TO THE EVIDENCE ACT: THE JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A CODE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...Proof in Criminal Justice”(1992) 4 SAcLJ 267; Michael Hor, “The Presumption of Innocence”[1995] SJLS 365. 29 See main text at note 21. 30 [1964] MLJ 291. 31 This was a magistrate’s appeal first heard by Tan Ah Tah J. On the application of the appellant, the case was ordered to be heard befo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT