JUDGMENTS
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2006
[One offence under S. 3(a) and one under S.5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Cap27.
Over 74.5 grammes of Class A drug. Defence advanced that Appellant was an
innocent courier. Presumptions under s.16 and s. 15(a) and (b) applied. No
credible explanation advanced and the Appellant was disbelieved at trial.
Presumptions not disproved. Appellant convicted on overwhelming evidence
and mandatory sentence of death passed]
Decision date: 8 May 2007
Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2006
[S.325 offence – voluntarily causing grievous hurt – the term “starting point” properly
refers to the general level of sentence for the offence being dealt with after trial – observations as to the correct approach to the calculation of sentence after trial]
Decision date: 1 May 2007
Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2005
Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2006
[Leave under Order 6 Rule 6 (1) required to issue writ for service abroad. The claim in the writ must be for a claim under Order 11 Rule 1. The writ for which leave was granted under order 11 Rule 1 (h) made no claim in tort. Submissions that conversion can relate to a credit in a bank account or for breach of trust rejected.]
Decision date: 6 Dec 2006
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006
[Personal injuries claim. Appeal on fact only on liability and contributory negligence. No sufficient grounds made out. Appeal on quantum. Awards upheld. ]
Decision date: 6 Dec 2006
Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2005
[Appeal on fact alone. Appeal dismissed]
Decision date: 6 Dec 2006
Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2006
Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2006
[Public Prosecutor’s appeal against fines totaling $1,000 imposed for 2 offences of Criminal Breach of Trust contrary to S.406 of the Penal Code on the grounds that they were manifestly inadequate and did not have sufficient deterrent or retributive effect. Conceded that special circumstances justified the imposition of fines rather that a custodial sentence. Substantial mitigation advanced including information about the Respondent’s lack of means which was not challenged by the prosecution at trial. In the circumstances the punishment was appropriate if
apparently lenient. Appeal dismissed]
Decision date: 20 Nov 2006
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2006
[Three offences of breach of trust by clerk in Ministry of Defence. In all $326,890 was
misappropriated. After plea the Judge’s overall sentence of 4 years and 6 months would have been appropriate. Given a delay of 6 years and 3½ months between complaint and eventual appearance in court for which no satisfactory explanation was given the Judge’s discount of one year was however not adequate. A proper discount would have been 2 years. The appeal succeeds. Sentence reduced to 2 years and 6 months]
Awg Ismail Bin Sahari @ Abdul Hamid v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
COACM/12/2006
Decision date: 13 Nov 2006
Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2006
[Ad Hoc Admission under section 7(1)(a) of the Legal Practice Act (Cap 132) – case must be such as to require counsel of special skill and qualifications – in the exercise of discretion the judge may not take into consideration that such counsel may be available in Brunei.]
Lau Suk Lee (trading as Lau Enterprise), Lau Ing Kwong (trading as Lau Enterprise) v Malayan Banking Berhad
COACV/10/2006
Decision date: 13 Nov 2006
Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2006
[Ad Hoc Admission under section 7(1)(a) of the Legal Practice Act (Cap 132) – case must be such as to require counsel of special skill and qualifications – in the exercise of discretion the judge may not take into consideration that such counsel may be available in Brunei.]
Lau Suk Lee (trading as Lau Enterprise), Lau Ing Kwong (trading as Lau Enterprise) v Malayan Banking Berhad
COACV/10/2006
Decision date: 13 Nov 2006
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2006
[Rape of a maid. Use of threats and a knife. Slight injury inflicted. Pitifully vulnerable
position of victim a grave aggravating factor. Proper starting point of 9 years]
Decision date: 11 Nov 2006
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2006
[ ]
Decision date: 6 Nov 2006
Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2005
[Joint and several bank guarantee by 5 persons to obtain a company overdraft. Subsequent guarantee entered into by 3 of the 5 to guarantee the same account in an increased sum.
Prior to the subsequent guarantee the 2, who do not enter into it, have a conversation with a bank officer informing him that they would like to be released from the first guarantee. He tells them that he will deal with the matter. No written notice of determination is given as required by the terms of the guarantee and there is non further communication as to release between the Bank and the 2 guarantors. Held that the evidence of the conversation fell far short of the clarity, precision and weight required to determine the guarantee. ]
Decision date: 6 Dec 2006
Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2005
[Misconduct of advocate and solicitor – effect of Legal Profession (Law Society) Order 2003 – held: Court has disciplinary jurisdiction when the Law Society is unable to fulfill its statutory obligations – in the instant case suspension reduced from 9 months to 6 months. ]
Decision date: 3 Dec 2005
Criminal Appeal No 7 of 2005
[The perception that there has been an increase in offences of incestuous rape since Ahmad Ebrahim v PP (Criminal Appeal 8 of 2004) was decided in December 2004 is not supported by the up to date statistics. Higher sentences passed on the basis of such increase are not justified. The guideline of a starting point of 15 years reduced to 10 after plea affirmed. Guidelines are to be followed unless sound reasons are given for departing from them]
Decision date: 1 Dec 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2004
[Conviction for possession of cannabis for the purpose of the trafficking. In the particular
circumstance the conviction was found to be unsatisfactory. Conviction therefore quashed]
Decision date: 28 Nov 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2005
[Fine only imposed for criminal breach of trust as a servant – appeal by Public Prosecutor.
Held that the mitigation, although strong, did not amount to the “very exceptional circumstances” required by R v Barrick, but in the present circumstances the court
would not interfere.]
Decision date: 28 Nov 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2005
[Revised tariff for possession of amounts below 40 grammes of Methylamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking made necessary by the Misuse of Drugs Act (Amendment) Order of 2002]
Decision date: 21 Nov 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2005
[3 offences of Rape of daughter when 13 and 16 years. Guidelines in A Bin I v PP [Cr.App.No.8 of 2004] considered. Overall sentence of 14 years imprisonment appropriate. Appeal dismissed]
Decision date: 17 Nov 2005
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2005
[The Appellant pleaded guilty to 3 charges of Criminal Breach of Trust contrary to S.409
of the Penal Code. On the individual charges, the Judge’s approach to sentence was impeccable. However, she then failed to consider whether the total consecutive sentences of 6 years were excessive, having regard to the overall criminality and mitigation. The total of 6 years’ imprisonment excessive. Reduced to 4 years]
Decision date: 16 Nov 2005
About GOV.BN | Research Us | Rate this Website
Digital Services
Overview of Digital Government
Digital Government Strategy & Initiatives
Digital Government Strategic Plans & Legislation
Other Information
Circular & Policy
Tenders & Quotations
TPOR for Government Agencies
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Disclaimer
Copyright Goverment of Brunei Darussalam. All Right Reserved.