Leading Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore

The High Court allowed the appeal, replaced the forgery sentences with lower individual terms, left the CDSA sentences undisturbed, and imposed a global sentence of ten years and seven months by…

The High Court allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a sentence of eight months' imprisonment for the 18 months imposed on the amalgamated s 420 cheating charge.

The District Court sentenced the accused to a fine of $4,000 and imposed the mandatory disqualification order of five years from the date of conviction, finding no special reasons to depart from it.

The court convicted PSA on the charge, finding that it had failed to discharge its burden under s 47 of the Act and that its failures caused the death.

The District Judge convicted all three accused as charged.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the 12-month disqualification, holding that the retest requirement is not a relevant sentencing consideration.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the one-week imprisonment term and substituted the maximum fine of $5,000, with one week's imprisonment in default; the five-year disqualification period…

The High Court dismissed Kevin's appeal against conviction and sentence and allowed the Prosecution's appeal, varying the sentence on the hurt charge from 12 months' to 30 months' imprisonment.

The court allowed the appeals in part.

The High Court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of five days' imprisonment with one day's imprisonment.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, upholding the conviction, the sentence of nine days' imprisonment and the District Judge's handling of bail.

Sundaresh Menon CJ dismissed the accused's appeal and allowed the Prosecution's appeal, increasing the aggregate sentence from 31 months' to 84 months' (seven years') imprisonment, more than the 55…

The High Court allowed JDA's appeal in part and dismissed the prosecution's appeal.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal against sentence and dismissed the appeal against conviction, upholding the conviction and the sentence of ten months' imprisonment.

Hoo Sheau Peng J allowed the appeal, holding that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court convicted the accused on the four charges and sentenced him to six years and six months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for attempted rape, and two, four and six weeks'…

The High Court allowed the Prosecution's appeal and replaced the fines with three months' imprisonment for the first charge and seven months' imprisonment for the second, to run consecutively for an…

The court sentenced the accused to 13 years and seven months' imprisonment for attempted murder and one month's imprisonment for the VCH charge, to run consecutively, for an aggregate of 13 years and…

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Judge's sentence of one week's imprisonment, finding no error in her analysis and declining to substitute a short detention order.

The court allowed the appeals in part.

The High Court allowed the Prosecution's appeal against sentence.

The court sentenced DCC to 10 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane on the rape charge and 8 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane on the sexual assault by penetration charge.

The court sentenced the accused to 12.5 years' imprisonment and caning, with the imprisonment term backdated to 20 November 2022, the date he completed his Reformative Training recall period while in…

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the District Judge did not err in finding that rehabilitation had been displaced as the dominant sentencing consideration, so the sentence of eight…

The court dismissed the application summarily, without setting it down for an oral hearing, under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, refusing permission to make a review application.

The court dismissed the application summarily under s 394H(7) of the CPC without setting it down for hearing, holding that permission to make a review application could not be granted.

Tay Yong Kwang JCA, sitting as a single judge of the Court of Appeal, dismissed the application summarily without a hearing under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A single Judge of the Court of Appeal refused, and so dismissed, the application for permission to make a review application, summarily under s 394H(7) of the CPC and without setting it down for a…

The court dismissed the application summarily under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code without setting it down for hearing.

The Court of Appeal (Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the grounds, with Steven Chong JCA and Ang Cheng Hock JCA) heard both matters on 6 March 2026 and dismissed the criminal motion and the appeal…

The Court of Appeal dismissed the criminal motion to adduce further evidence and dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed CM 10, dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence, ordered the eight-year imprisonment term to take effect from 31 March 2023, and lifted the stay on caning…

The High Court dismissed the criminal motion to adduce further evidence and dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence, leaving the aggregate sentence of seven years and five months'…

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence and dismissed both criminal motions on 27 February 2025, upholding 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

The court dismissed the application summarily, without setting it down for an oral hearing, under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, refusing permission to make a review application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all eight applications (CM 22, CM 32, CM 45, CM 46, CM 47, CM 48, CM 49 and CM 50).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application under s 238A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, finding no reason whatsoever to grant another stay of the execution scheduled for that day.

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single judge, dismissed CM 29 summarily as clearly prohibited under ss 394K(5) and 394G(1) of the CPC, and ordered Mr Ong to pay costs of $5,000 personally to the…

Tay Yong Kwang JCA, sitting alone, summarily dismissed the application.

The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction and ordered that USD41,900 be returned to Ms Wise in that currency and that the remaining USD611.55 vest in the Government.

The High Court dismissed the criminal motion, leaving the aggregate sentence of ten years and three months' imprisonment unchanged.

The High Court dismissed the application.

The High Court dismissed the application for criminal revision.

The High Court dismissed the appeal because no right of appeal lies from a disposal inquiry, and declined to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction because there was no fundamental error occasioning a…

Hoo Sheau Peng J allowed the appeal, holding that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, as to the drink driving imprisonment term only.

The court dismissed the Prosecution's appeal and left the $150,000 fine undisturbed.

The High Court allowed the Prosecution's appeal and replaced the fines with three months' imprisonment for the first charge and seven months' imprisonment for the second, to run consecutively for an…

The court (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Vincent Hoong J) dismissed the appeal and enhanced Mr Koh's sentence from four months to 14 months' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Steven Chong JCA) dismissed Iskandar's appeal, upholding his global sentence of 32 years' imprisonment, and allowed Farid's appeal in…

A single judge of the Court of Appeal summarily dismissed the application without setting it down for hearing, under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, finding no legitimate basis to…

The court dismissed the motion summarily under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, holding there was no legitimate basis to review the decision in CCA 20.

The court summarily dismissed the application under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, finding no legitimate basis for a review of the appeal decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application summarily under s 394H(7) of the CPC, finding no legitimate basis for exercising its power of review.

The Magistrate's Court ordered that all the seized funds remain under seizure for a further 12 months.

The High Court allowed the Prosecution's application for criminal revision, set aside the District Judge's order and ordered that the iPhone, Macbook and charger be forfeited to the State.

The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction and ordered that USD41,900 be returned to Ms Wise in that currency and that the remaining USD611.55 vest in the Government.

The High Court dismissed the appeal because no right of appeal lies from a disposal inquiry, and declined to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction because there was no fundamental error occasioning a…

Aedit Abdullah J treated the matter as one for revision, found that serious injustice had been caused, and exercised the court's revisionary powers in Mr Lim's favour, in effect allowing his…

The court sentenced the accused to corrective training for 11 years and 6 months, backdated to 3 January 2024, with time in custody counting towards the term.

The High Court dismissed Toh Lam Seng's appeal against conviction and sentence and allowed the Prosecution's cross-appeal.

The High Court allowed the Prosecution's appeal and enhanced the sentence from six years to nine years of corrective training, finding six years manifestly inadequate.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence, holding that the term of eight years' preventive detention imposed by the District Judge was not manifestly excessive.

The High Court allowed the Prosecution's appeal and enhanced the sentences to 22 months' imprisonment for the first CDSA charge and 26 months for the second.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence.

The High Court dismissed both appeals.

The court allowed the Prosecution's appeal in part.

The court declined to call for an MTO suitability report, rejected community-based sentences and a fine, and sentenced the accused to six weeks' imprisonment.

Hoo Sheau Peng J sentenced the accused to 16 years' imprisonment, backdated to 19 July 2021.

Vincent Hoong J sentenced the accused to seven years' imprisonment on each charge, ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate of 14 years' imprisonment, and backdated the sentence to…

Sundaresh Menon CJ dismissed the Prosecution's appeal and allowed the offender's appeal in part.

The court convicted the accused on both charges.

The High Court convicted the accused on all three charges and sentenced him to 8 months' imprisonment on the first outrage of modesty charge, 12 months and 3 strokes on the second, and 13 years and…

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence.

Pang Khang Chau J convicted both accused.

The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that whether it applied the revisionary standard of serious injustice or exercised a first-instance discretion, the balance came down in favour…

The High Court dismissed the application.

The High Court dismissed the application for criminal revision.

Vincent Hoong J dismissed the application, finding that neither decision of the District Judge was wrong, let alone palpably wrong so as to cause serious injustice.

The court convicted CQW on seven charges, namely four of penile-vaginal rape, one of penile-oral rape, one of exploitative sexual assault by digital penetration and one of sexual assault by digital…

Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J convicted the accused of the penile-vaginal rape, penile-oral rape and two outrage of modesty charges, and granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal on the digital…

The High Court convicted the accused on all three charges and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and four strokes of the cane on each.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part.

The Court of Appeal answered the question in the negative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the criminal motion, holding that neither question, nor the reformulated second question, raised a question of law of public interest, so permission to refer was refused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that none of the five questions was a question of law of public interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed CM 7 and CM 8, and consequently dismissed CCA 1, holding that on every possible reading of what the applicant sought, the proceedings were bound to fail.

The Court of Appeal summarily dismissed the application for permission to make a review application, without setting it down for hearing, under its powers in s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Steven Chong JCA dismissed the criminal motion without setting it down for hearing.

The court dismissed the application summarily under s 394H(7) without setting it down for hearing, finding no legitimate basis to review the concluded appeal in CCA 38.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to review, finding no legitimate basis for reopening the concluded appeal in CCA 36.

Tay Yong Kwang JCA, sitting as a single judge of the Court of Appeal, dismissed the application summarily without a hearing under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A single Judge of the Court of Appeal refused, and so dismissed, the application for permission to make a review application, summarily under s 394H(7) of the CPC and without setting it down for a…

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application summarily without an oral hearing under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, refusing both permission to make a review application and the stay of…

The Court of Appeal (Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the grounds, with Steven Chong JCA and Ang Cheng Hock JCA) heard both matters on 6 March 2026 and dismissed the criminal motion and the appeal…

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence and dismissed both criminal motions on 27 February 2025, upholding 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Criminal Motion No 47 of 2024 in its entirety as an abuse of process.

The High Court dismissed Ng's appeal against conviction and allowed both appeals against sentence in part, reducing the fraudulent trading terms to four and a half years for Leong and four years for…

The court allowed the appellants' appeals in part.

Vincent Hoong J dismissed both appeals against conviction and sentence and partly allowed the Prosecution's appeal, setting aside the aggregate sentences and imposing 84 months' imprisonment on Henry…

The High Court dismissed the criminal motion, leaving the aggregate sentence of ten years and three months' imprisonment unchanged.

The Court of Appeal answered the question in the negative.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence.

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single judge, dismissed the application and refused permission to make a review application.

The Court of Appeal refused permission to review the decision in CA/CCA 37/2019 and summarily dismissed the application under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, finding it devoid of merit.

The High Court allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a sentence of eight months' imprisonment for the 18 months imposed on the amalgamated s 420 cheating charge.

The court dismissed all three appeals.

The High Court sentenced the accused to a global term of 21 years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals against sentence in their entirety, leaving the aggregate terms of 36 years' and 20 years' imprisonment in place.

The District Court convicted the accused of the section 332 charge and sentenced her to six months' imprisonment, backdated to 23 July 2026, when she was arrested after failing to attend court for…

The District Court convicted the accused after trial on the s 324 charge and, on his guilty pleas, on the other two charges, declined to call for corrective training or preventive detention reports,…

The High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the imprisonment term from seven months and three weeks to 15 weeks.

The High Court, See Kee Oon JAD, allowed the prosecution's appeal and enhanced the sentence for the rioting charge from 13 months to 18 months' imprisonment.

The court sentenced JKA to seven weeks' imprisonment for the Cold Storage charge, 30 weeks for the 2024 amalgamated charge, 12 weeks for the 2025-2026 amalgamated charge and 44 weeks for the…

The District Court sentenced the accused, after a 20% reduction for his guilty plea at Stage 2 of the Guilty Plea Guidelines, to 14 months' imprisonment for the minor offence, 28 months' imprisonment…