R v Ball
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1951 |
| Date | 1951 |
| Year | 1951 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
268 cases
-
State (Stanbridge) v Mahon
...180. 13 The State (Lambe) v. FitzgeraldIR [1973] I.R. 195. 14 The State (Shannon) v. O hUadhaighIR [1975] I.R. 98. 15 R. v. BallUNK (1951) 35 Cr.App.R. 164. Criminal law - Evidence - Procedure - Previous convictions of accused - Proof - Certiorari - Concurrent appeal - Remedy discretionary.......
- Public Prosecutor v Ehsan bin Mohd Rani
-
Lim Teck Chye v Public Prosecutor
...which concerns itself with a wide range of other competing policy considerations. The following remarks of Hilbery J in R v Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164 at 165–166 were cited by me in PP v Tan Fook Sum, and I find it useful to refer to them again In deciding the appropriate sentence, a Court......
-
Moganaruban s/o Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor
...sentence a Court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest”: R v Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164 at 165 as applied in PP v Tan Fook Sum ([57] supra) and Ong Ah Tiong v PP [2004] 1 SLR 587. I considered it paramount that the integrity of the......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
DETENTION DURING THE PRESIDENT’S PLEASURE: A FOREGONE SENTENCE FOR A YOUNG PERSON CONVICTED OF MURDER?
...v PP[2002] 1 SLR 314 at [46], HC; Leaw Siat Chong v PP[2002] 1 SLR 63 at [10], HC. 13 Tan Fook Sum, supra, n 8 at 544E—G. 14 R v Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164 at 165—166, HC [emphasis added]. 15 See Lim Sin Han Andy v PP[2000] 2 SLR 818 at [18], HC (“The deterrence of the individual offender,......