Knowledge and Possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act
When the Court of Appeal rendered the decision of Tan Kiam Peng in 2008, it was unable to come to a conclusive determination of the correct interpretation of s. 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a provision pertaining to the presumption of an accused’s knowledge of the nature of the controlled drugs...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2012
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/37 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=sol_research_smu |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Singapore Management University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-smu-ink.sol_research_smu-1036 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-smu-ink.sol_research_smu-10362018-07-10T06:22:38Z Knowledge and Possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act CHEN, Siyuan Khng, Nathaniel When the Court of Appeal rendered the decision of Tan Kiam Peng in 2008, it was unable to come to a conclusive determination of the correct interpretation of s. 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a provision pertaining to the presumption of an accused’s knowledge of the nature of the controlled drugs in his possession. This issue was presented to a differently constituted Court of Appeal in Nagaenthran, which seemingly ruled in favour of the narrow interpretation of s. 18(2) as opposed to the broader interpretation. Nagaenthran, however, did not address the questions raised by Tan Kiam Peng vis-à-vis s. 18(2) in a comprehensive fashion. Indeed, there are various angles in which light can be shed on the prism that is s. 18(2), and in this paper, three separate and distinct heads will be considered, paying particular regard to cases and perspectives that could have impacted Nagaenthran, but were not discussed or elaborated therein: (a) whether there is a practical difference between the two interpretations; (b) what more can be said about the purposive interpretation of s. 18(2) undertaken in Tan Kiam Peng and other interpretive issues that may arise for consideration; (c) whether cases from Hong Kong, which has legislation similar to s.18 of the MDA, can offer assistance. 2012-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/37 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=sol_research_smu http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School Of Law (SMU Access Only) eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Courts Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Law |
institution |
Singapore Management University |
building |
SMU Libraries |
country |
Singapore |
collection |
InK@SMU |
language |
English |
topic |
Courts Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Law |
spellingShingle |
Courts Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Law CHEN, Siyuan Khng, Nathaniel Knowledge and Possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act |
description |
When the Court of Appeal rendered the decision of Tan Kiam Peng in 2008, it was unable to come to a conclusive determination of the correct interpretation of s. 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a provision pertaining to the presumption of an accused’s knowledge of the nature of the controlled drugs in his possession. This issue was presented to a differently constituted Court of Appeal in Nagaenthran, which seemingly ruled in favour of the narrow interpretation of s. 18(2) as opposed to the broader interpretation. Nagaenthran, however, did not address the questions raised by Tan Kiam Peng vis-à-vis s. 18(2) in a comprehensive fashion. Indeed, there are various angles in which light can be shed on the prism that is s. 18(2), and in this paper, three separate and distinct heads will be considered, paying particular regard to cases and perspectives that could have impacted Nagaenthran, but were not discussed or elaborated therein: (a) whether there is a practical difference between the two interpretations; (b) what more can be said about the purposive interpretation of s. 18(2) undertaken in Tan Kiam Peng and other interpretive issues that may arise for consideration; (c) whether cases from Hong Kong, which has legislation similar to s.18 of the MDA, can offer assistance. |
format |
text |
author |
CHEN, Siyuan Khng, Nathaniel |
author_facet |
CHEN, Siyuan Khng, Nathaniel |
author_sort |
CHEN, Siyuan |
title |
Knowledge and Possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act |
title_short |
Knowledge and Possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act |
title_full |
Knowledge and Possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act |
title_fullStr |
Knowledge and Possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act |
title_full_unstemmed |
Knowledge and Possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act |
title_sort |
knowledge and possession under the misuse of drugs act |
publisher |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University |
publishDate |
2012 |
url |
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research_smu/37 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=sol_research_smu |
_version_ |
1681132878137655296 |