Public Prosecutor v Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan

Public Prosecutor v Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan

The appeal was allowed and respondent convicted because the circumstantial facts (respondent seen browsing the items and the same items found in her bag) together with the respondent's unjustified failure to call the crucial witness Natasha allowed an adverse inference under s116(g), leaving no reasonable hypothesis other than that the respondent placed the items in her bag; respondent sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment under s380 Penal Code.

Citation
[2002] SGHC 242
Parties
Appellant/prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Respondent/accused: Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
16 October 2002
Case Number
MA No 15 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction entered
Legal Topics
Theft Under S 380 Penal Code, Credibility of Witnesses, Circumstantial Evidence Standard, Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Material Witness (s116 Illustration (g)), Cross Examination of Own Witness (s156 Evidence Act), Sentencing Following Breach of Probation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Sentencing Theft Under S 380 Penal Code Credibility of Witnesses Circumstantial Evidence Standard Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Material Witness (s116 Illustration (g)) Cross Examination of Own Witness (s156 Evidence Act) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Appellant/prosecution

Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan

Respondent/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the prosecution witness not credible
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt on wholly circumstantial evidence
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference should be drawn under s 116 illustration (g) for failure to call a material witness (Natasha)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and respondent convicted because the circumstantial facts (respondent seen browsing the items and the same items found in her bag) together with the respondent's unjustified failure to call the crucial witness Natasha allowed an adverse inference under s116(g), leaving no reasonable hypothesis other than that the respondent placed the items in her bag; respondent sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment under s380 Penal Code.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction entered

Orders

  • Respondent convicted under s 380 Penal Code
  • Respondent sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment