Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1956 |
| Date | 1956 |
| Year | 1956 |
| Court | Privy Council |
-
- 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
254 cases
-
Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor
......In a Privy Council case on appeal from Malaya, Subramaniam v PP [1956] MLJ 220 , Mr L M D de Silva characterised the hearsay rule as such (at 222): . Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish ......
- Cheng Hang Guan v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd
- De Rose v South Australia
-
Pan-Electric Industries Ltd (in liquidation) v Sim Lim Finance Ltd and Others
......`Pan El`), for a declaration that Pan El are the beneficial owners of 6.3 million shares in a public listed company, ACMA Electrical Industries Ltd (`ACMA`), which shares were at that time in the ... nothing else and certain hearsay evidence admitted on the principle set out in PP v Subramaniam . Of course minutes of directors` meetings are admissible under s 188 of the Companies Act (Cap ......
Request a trial to view additional results
16 books & journal articles
-
Subject Index
...No. 417/03, 2September 2004 ...........................................6 5Stoddard v State, 850 A (2nd) 406 (2004) .. 115Subramaniam v R [1956] 1 WLR 965 ......120Tang, Re (2002) 168 CCC (3d) 145 ............. 186Three Rivers DC v Bank of England(Disclosure) (No. 3) [2002] EWHC 2730,[2003] ......
-
Table of cases
...v R, [1977] 2 SCR 748 ............................................................................ 652 Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor, [1956] 1 WLR 965 (PC) .......................139–40 Subramaniam v R, 2019 QCCA 1744 ................................................................. 443 S......
-
Hearsay
...the terrorists had said; given the context, 7 R v Starr , [2000] 2 SCR 144 at para 185 [ Starr ]. 8 Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor , [1956] 1 WLR 965 (PC). THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 140 there was reason to believe that Subramaniam may have been about to relate that the terrorists had threatened ......
-
Evidence 1
...statement as evidence of the truth of the matters asserted in them - see Privy Council decision in Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, (1956) 1 W.L.R. 965 at p. 969 and R. v. Mclean (1968) 2 Cr. App. R. 80.” Now in the light of the aforementioned, let me examine what happened in the trial Cou......
Request a trial to view additional results