Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

12-2011

Abstract

The Court of Appeal (CA) judgment in Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor created quite a stir in Singapore. The case pertained to a murder involving two suspects, and its resolution took almost six years, with many twists and turns as to the actual facts. The CA attributed the confusion in part to questionable practices adopted by the police and the prosecution at various points in the proceedings, and reserved strong words for them in its judgment. It also established new requirements for the prosecution regarding its duty to the court to disclose relevant material not favourable to the case it seeks to present. This piece focuses on these new requirements, and suggests that the premises invoked by the court to impose disclosure obligations on the prosecution are not completely consistent with what it concluded. It is also suggested that the court was at cross purposes with some of the arguments raised by the prosecution.

Discipline

Asian Studies | Legislation

Publication

Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal

Volume

11

Issue

2

First Page

207

Last Page

216

ISSN

1472-9342

Identifier

10.5235/147293411799804498

Publisher

Hart Publishing

Additional URL

http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/147293411799804498

Download

Share

COinS