Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor
 | This is a sandbox for an article that is being edited as part of an educational assignment called the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia project. If you are not a member of the project, please do not edit this article. To contact the project co-ordinator please leave a message at "User talk:Smuconlaw". |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor | |
|---|---|
 The Old Supreme Court Building, photographed in April 2007 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Singapore |
| Full case name | Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appeals |
| Decided | 8 December 1988 |
| Citation | [1988] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 525 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions | De Souza Kevin Desmond v. Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 464, H.C.; Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 30, H.C. |
| Related actions | Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs [1989] 1 S.L.R.(R) 461, H.C.; [1990] 1 S.L.R.(R) 347, C.A.; Cheng Vincent v. Minister for Home Affairs [1990] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 38, H.C. |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Wee Chong Jin C.J., L.P. Thean and Chan Sek Keong JJ. |
| Case opinions | |
| Exercise of discretion by President and Minister for Home Affairs under ss. 8 and 10 of the Internal Security Act subject to judicial review by a court as an objective rather than subjective test applies. | |
The case of Colin Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutorwas a high court case that dealt mainly with the constitutional issue of a court able to restrict a party's fundamental liberties when it comes into conflict with public interests. In this case, the court restricted the appellant (Colin's)freedom of religion with the aim of achieving public interest aims.
The article should start with a few paragraphs summarizing the main content of the article. It is often easier to write the main content first, then prepare the summary at the end. The article should start with a few paragraphs summarizing the main content of the article. It is often easier to write the main content first, then prepare the summary at the end. • The article should start with a few paragraphs summarizing the main content of the article. It is often easier to write the main content first, then prepare the summary at the end.
FACTS
Jehovah witness kenna charged with XXX, appeal, etc, court reactions, etc.
Here is the text that goes into this section of the article. Don't forget to add footnotes![1]
Cite a source in full the first time you refer to it. After that, you can type something like this in the footnote:
Tan, "The Judiciary", p. 29.Chan, The Legal System of Singapore, pp. 41–68.
For more information on citation in Wikipedia, see the "Quick citation guide" on the project home page.
JUDGEMENT
summary of court judgement
ISSUES
Whether the High Court could hear Constitutional law issues
Whether Order 179/123 was unconstitutional and ultra vires
Whether Order 123 was ultra vires the UPA or invalid
Whether Order 123 was unreasonable and disproportionate
Whether there was a breach of natural justice
Whether the orders were disproportionate to the interests of the state
Here is the text that goes into this subsection. It is easy to create a bulleted list:
- First entry.
- Second entry.
- Third entry.
You can also create numbered lists:
- First entry.
- Second entry.
- Third entry.
Sub-subsection
Want to quote a passage? Use the {{quote}} template:
This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively. • This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively. • This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively. • This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively. • This is a passage quoted from a source. Do not quote excessively.[2]
SUMMARY
statist conclusion.
See also
Notes
- ^ Footnotes are added by enclosing text in the footnote between "ref" tags. Remember to put footnote numbers after punctuation. Use the {{citation}} template, like this: Yeo Tiong Min (1999), "Jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts", in Kevin Y[ew] L[ee] Tan, ed. (ed.), The Singapore Legal System, Singapore: Singapore University Press, pp. 249–296 at 265–266, ISBN 978-9971-69-213-1 (hbk.), ISBN 978-9971-69-212-4 (pbk.)
{{citation}}:|editor=has generic name (help); Unknown parameter|ed=ignored (help). - ^ Remember to add a citation at the end of your quotation.
Further reading
Articles and websites
- Pillai, K. Muralidharan; Luo, Qinghua (2009), "Revisiting the High Court's Revisionary Jurisdiction to Enhance Sentences in Criminal Cases", Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 21: 135–160.
- Singapore court system, Law Society of Singapore, retrieved 26 December 2009.
- Tan, Eugene; Chan, Gary (13 April 2009), "The Judiciary", The Singapore Legal System, Singapore Academy of Law, retrieved 26 December 2009.
Books
- Chan, Helena H[ui-]M[eng] (1995), "The Judiciary", The Legal System of Singapore, Singapore: Butterworths Asia, pp. 41–68, ISBN 978-0-409-99789-7 (pbk.)
{{citation}}: Check|isbn=value: invalid character (help). - Kwek, Mean Luck [et al.], eds. (2006), Hall of Justice: Supreme Court Singapore, Singapore: Supreme Court of Singapore, ISBN 978-981-05-5356-2
{{citation}}:|first=has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). - Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee] (2011), "Without Fear or Favour: The Judiciary", An Introduction to Singapore's Constitution (rev. ed.), Singapore: Talisman Publishing, pp. 107–131, ISBN 978-981-08-6456-9 (pbk.).
- Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee]; Thio, Li-ann (2010), "The Judiciary", Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore (3rd ed.), Singapore: LexisNexis, pp. 505–630, ISBN 978-981-236-795-2 (hbk.).
- Thian, Yee Sze; Chong, Chin Chin; Lim, Sharon (2002), In Session: Supreme Court Singapore: The Building, her Heritage and her People, Singapore: Supreme Court of Singapore, ISBN 978-981-047-671-7.