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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: CHEN, Siyuan, Khng, Nathaniel
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2012
Subjects:
Law
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