Dealing with Unreliable Evidence
Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor was the culmination of a case described by the Court of Appeal as “extraordinary” and “one of the longest in the Singapore judiciary’s annals”. Two brothers, Muhammad and Ismil, were alleged to have robbed and murdered an old woman in her own flat and in the pr...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/20 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=sol_research_smu |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor was the culmination of a case described by the Court of Appeal as “extraordinary” and “one of the longest in the Singapore judiciary’s annals”. Two brothers, Muhammad and Ismil, were alleged to have robbed and murdered an old woman in her own flat and in the presence of her bedridden husband. The brothers were both convicted by the High Court and sentenced to death. In acquitting Ismil of all charges, the Court of Appeal rendered a 207-paragraph judgment that canvassed many issues, but space constraints limits this note’s treatment to the issue of whether a court has the discretion to exclude procedurally flawed statements – specifically, long/investigation statements in this context. |
|---|