DOCSLIB.ORG

2020-Sghc-168-Pdf.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020-Sghc-168-Pdf.Pdf IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGHC 168 Criminal Case No 47 of 2019 Between Public Prosecutor … Plaintiff And (1) Azlin binte Arujunah (2) Ridzuan bin Mega Abdul Rahman … Defendants GROUNDS OF DECISION [Criminal Law] — [Complicity] — [Common intention] [Criminal Law] — [Offences] — [Murder] [Criminal Law] — [Offences] — [Hurt] [Criminal Law] — [Special exceptions] — [Diminished responsibility] [Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Children and Young Persons Act] [Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Sentencing] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2 JOINT TRIAL OF ABUSE AND MURDER CHARGES............................4 THE ABUSE CHARGES ................................................................................7 JULY AND AUGUST CYPA CHARGES...............................................................7 Ridzuan’s offences in July 2016 .................................................................8 Azlin’s offences in August 2016 .................................................................9 ALLEGED INCIDENT IN END AUGUST TO EARLY SEPTEMBER 2016 ................11 FIRST HALF OF OCTOBER 2016......................................................................14 AFTER 15 OCTOBER 2016 .............................................................................15 CONCLUSION ON THE ABUSE CHARGES.........................................................22 THE MURDER CHARGES..........................................................................23 SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND DECISION FOR THE MURDER CHARGES ................24 CAUSE OF DEATH ..........................................................................................26 Factual basis ............................................................................................26 (1) Incident 1.....................................................................................26 (2) Incident 2.....................................................................................27 (3) Incident 3.....................................................................................28 (4) Incident 4.....................................................................................29 Scalding resulting from the splashing incidents ......................................30 Medical evidence on cause of death.........................................................31 The Defence’s arguments on the cause of death ......................................33 i Sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death ............................37 Conclusion on medical evidence ..............................................................41 DID RIDZUAN AND AZLIN POSSESS THE REQUISITE INTENTION?....................42 When must the common intention be formed? .........................................42 Why was common intention necessary? ...................................................43 Content of the common intention required...............................................43 Did the facts at hand allow such a common intention to be inferred?...................................................................................................49 Use of an adverse inference to fill the gap?.............................................55 Use of second, third and fourth incidents only.........................................56 AMENDMENT OF CHARGES ............................................................................58 Murder......................................................................................................58 Grievous hurt............................................................................................61 EXCEPTION 7 DEFENCES ................................................................................64 Legal context ............................................................................................64 The effect of the decision not to give evidence .........................................67 Azlin..........................................................................................................68 (1) Azlin’s Adjustment Disorder ......................................................68 (2) The first limb: abnormality of mind............................................69 (3) The second and third limbs .........................................................74 Ridzuan.....................................................................................................74 (1) The first limb: abnormality of mind............................................75 (A) ASPD.................................................................................75 (B) IED....................................................................................77 (I) Criteria .....................................................................77 (II) Criterion A ...............................................................78 (III) Criterion B ...............................................................81 (IV) Criterion C ...............................................................81 ii (V) Criterion D ...............................................................82 (VI) Criterion F; conclusion on IED................................82 (C) ADHD................................................................................83 (D) Hypnotic Use Disorder .....................................................83 (2) The second and third limbs .........................................................84 (3) Conclusion on Ridzuan’s reliance on Exception 7 .....................84 SUMMATION ON THE CHARGES...........................................................85 SENTENCES FOR AZLIN AND RIDZUAN..............................................86 PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE POSITIONS........................................................86 NECESSITY FOR DETERRENCE AND RETRIBUTION ..........................................88 ISSUES OF MITIGATION AND MENTAL CONDITION ..........................................89 SUITABILITY OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT ............................................................91 JOINT CULPABILITY OF AZLIN AND RIDZUAN ................................................97 THE SCALDING CHARGES..............................................................................98 Section 326 of the Penal Code .................................................................98 The appropriate sentences under s 325 of the Penal Code......................99 Adjustment for the use of dangerous means...........................................102 Aggravating and mitigating factors .......................................................104 ABUSE CHARGES.........................................................................................107 D2 and D3 ..............................................................................................108 C2 and C3...............................................................................................109 D5, D6 and D8 .......................................................................................110 C5A and D7A .........................................................................................113 C6 and D9 ..............................................................................................114 THE AGGREGATE SENTENCE........................................................................115 Unrelated precedents relating to death from abuse...............................116 iii The consecutive sentences......................................................................118 The concurrent sentences .......................................................................119 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................119 iv This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and another [2020] SGHC 168 High Court — Criminal Case No 47 of 2019 Valerie Thean J 12–15, 18–20, 26–29 November 2019, 20 January, 3 April, 19 June, 13 July 2020 13 August 2020 Valerie Thean J: Introduction 1 Azlin binte Arujunah (“Azlin”) and Ridzuan bin Mega Abdul Rahman (“Ridzuan”) were jointly tried on multiple charges for various acts of abuse from July 2016 to October 2016 against their five-year-old son (“the Child”). In respect of a series of four scalding incidents which resulted in the Child’s death on 23 October 2016, they were charged with murder under s 300(c) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). After trial, I amended these murder charges and convicted Azlin and Ridzuan on newly framed charges based on the scalding incidents. I also convicted Azlin and Ridzuan on the charges for the acts of abuse, save for one on which they were acquitted. Azlin was sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment and 12 months’ imprisonment in lieu of caning, while Ridzuan was sentenced to 27 years’ PP v Azlin bte Arujunah [2020] SGHC 168 imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. I now furnish the grounds for my decision. Background 2 At the time of the offences, the accused persons, then 24 years of age, were the parents of six children. Azlin and Ridzuan lived together with four of their children at the material time: their oldest
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Prosecutor V Wan Kamil Bin Md Shafian and Others
    Public Prosecutor v Wan Kamil bin Md Shafian and Others [2001] SGHC 357 Case Number : CC 31/2001 Decision Date : 28 November 2001 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : MPH Rubin J Counsel Name(s) : Lawrence Ang, Toh Yung Cheong and April Phang (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the prosecution; Ahmad Khalis (Wong Khalis & Partners) and Shah Bhavini (Bhabini & Co) (AC) (both assigned) for the first accused; Luke Lee (Luke Lee & Co) and Johan Ismail (Johan Ismail & Partners) (AC) (both assigned) for the second accused; David Rasif (David Rasif & Partners) and Sadari Musari (Sadari Musari & Partners) (AC) (both assigned) for the third acccused Parties : Public Prosecutor — Wan Kamil bin Md Shafian; Ibrahim bin Mohd; Rosli bin Ahmat Judgment GROUNDS OF DECISION 1 Wan Kamil Bin Md Shafian (‘the first accused’) born on 1 May 1967, Ibrahim Bin Mohd (‘the second accused’) born on 18 November 1965 and Rosli Bin Ahmat (‘the third accused’) born on 20 July 1970, all three from Singapore, were jointly charged and tried before me for an offence of murder. The charge against them was that on or about 8 August 2000 at about 11.45am, in furtherance of the common intention of all, they committed murder by causing the death of a 42-year-old taxi driver by name Koh Ngiap Yong, along Chestnut Avenue, Singapore, an offence punishable under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). 2 The prosecution evidence was that on 8 August 2000 at about 6.10am, the victim left home, first to take his daughter to school and later to drive his taxi-cab bearing registration No SHB 540C for hire.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunny Ang, Mimi Wong, Adrian Lim and John Martin Scripps Are Some
    BIBLIOASIA JUL – SEP 2017 Vol. 13 / Issue 02 / Feature violence generally suffer from what is known ings, revenge, jealousy, fear, desperation or Sunny Ang Soo Suan came from a middle- as a pathological personality condition. religious fanaticism. class family and obtained his Senior Criminal or offender profiling (also Singapore has seen several promi- Cambridge Grade One school certificate in known as criminal investigative analy- nent murder cases over the last 50 years, 1955. He received a Colombo Plan scholar- sis) is sometimes used by the police to each unique in its own way. As there are ship in 1957 to train as a commercial airline explain the behavioural makeup of the too many cases to profile within the scope pilot, but was subsequently dropped from perpetrator and identify likely suspects. of this article, we have selected only four the programme due to his arrogant and Careful study of the crime scene photos, cases – Mimi Wong, John Martin Scripps, irresponsible behaviour. Ang also had a the physical and non-physical evidence, Sunny Ang and Adrian Lim – that span the history of theft, and was caught trying to the manner in which the victim was killed decades from the 1960s to 1990s. The first steal from a radio shop on 12 July 1962, or the body disposed of, witnesses’ state- two have been categorised as “crimes of only to be successfully defended by the ments, autopsy photos and forensic lab impulse” (also called “crimes of passion”, prominent criminal lawyer, David Mar- reports allow investigators to compile a usually driven by jealousy or murderous shall, and placed on probation.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Vijay S/O Katherasan and Others V Public Prosecutor
    Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v Public Prosecutor [2010] SGCA 33 Case Number : Criminal Appeal No 1 of 2008 Decision Date : 03 September 2010 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; V K Rajah JA; Choo Han Teck J Counsel Name(s) : James Bahadur Masih (James Masih & Co) and Amarick Singh Gill (Amarick Gill & Co) for the first appellant; Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong) for the second appellant; Mohamed Muzammil bin Mohamed (Muzammil & Co) and Allagarsamy s/o Palaniyappan (Allagarsamy & Co) for the third appellant; S Jennifer Marie, David Khoo, Ng Yong Kiat Francis and Ong Luan Tze (Attorney- General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others — Public Prosecutor Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing [LawNet Editorial Note: This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court in [2008] SGHC 120.] 3 September 2010 Judgment reserved. Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 This is an appeal by the first appellant, Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan (“Daniel”), and the second appellant, Christopher Samson s/o Anpalagan (“Christopher”), against the decision of the trial judge (“the Judge”) convicting them of murder in Criminal Case No 16 of 2007 (see Public Prosecutor v Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others [2008] SGHC 120 (“the GD”)). The third appellant, Nakamuthu Balakrishnan (alias Bala) (“Bala”), originally appealed as well against his conviction for murder, but subsequently decided not to proceed with his appeal (see [46]–[47] below). For convenience, we shall hereafter refer to the three appellants collectively as “the Appellants”.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Motion
    Electronically RECEIVED on June 07, 2021 Electronically FILED on June 07, 2021 Appellate Court Clerk Appellate Court Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Movant, ) KNOX COUNTY v. ) No. M2020-01156-SC-DPE-DD ) CAPITAL CASE CHRISTA GAIL PIKE, ) ) Trial Court No. 58183A Defendant. ) DEFENDANT CHRISTA PIKE’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE’S MOTION TO SET EXECUTION DATE AND REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF COMMUTATION Christa Gail Pike opposes the State’s motion to set an execution date and asks this Court for a Certificate of Commutation. Extenuating circumstances exist because Christa Pike was only eighteen at the time of this offense and suffering from severe mental illness along with organic brain damage. Her youth, her sexual victimization and traumatic upbringing, as well as her severe mental illness justify a commutation of the death sentence by this Court. Alternatively, Ms. Pike requests this Court deny the State’s motion because that motion is premature. Setting an execution date is premature because the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has reviewed Ms. Pike’s Petition requesting issuance of precautionary measures, determined that she is at serious and urgent risk of irreparable harm, and requested that the United 1 States refrain from carrying out the death penalty on Christa Pike until the IACHR can complete its investigation. Furthermore, setting an execution date at this time is also premature because TDOC safety measures in response to the COVID pandemic have precluded completing a current mental health evaluation. The State has just begun reopening and prisons have only recently begun allowing experts to conduct in-person evaluations.
    [Show full text]
  • Wan Kamil Bin Md Shafian & Ors V Public Prosecutor
    Wan Kamil Bin Md Shafian & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGCA 15 Case Number : Criminal Appeal No 20 of 2001 Decision Date : 07 March 2002 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA; Tan Lee Meng J; Yong Pung How CJ Counsel Name(s) : — Parties : — Between 1. WAN KAMIL BIN MD SHAFIAN 2. IBRAHIM BIN MOHD 3. ROSLI BIN AHMAT ... Appellants And PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... Respondent Citation: Criminal Appeal No 20 of 2001 Jurisdiction: Singapore Date: 2002:03:07 2002:02:18 Court: Court of Appeal Coram: Yong Pung How, CJ Chao Hick Tin, JA Tan Lee Meng, J Counsel: Ahmad Khalis (Wong Khalis & Partners) and Shah Bhavini (Bhavini & Co) (assigned) for the first appellant Luke Lee (Luke Lee & Co) and Johan Ismail (Johan Ismail & Partners) (both assigned) for the first appellant David Rasif (David Rasif & Partners) and Sadari Musari (Sadari Musari & Partners) (both assigned) for the third appellant Lawrence Ang, Cheng Howe Ming and Alvin Chen (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent HEADNOTES Criminal Law – Common intention – Murder – Whether murder was in furtherance of common intention to rob – Penal Code (Cap 224) s 34 Criminal Law – Common intention – Murder – Physical presence at the actual commission of the offence - Penal Code (Cap 224) s 34 Facts The deceased, Koh Ngiap Yong, a taxi driver, was found in some bushes along Chestnut Avenue with a number of stab wounds in his chest and neck. A handcuff key with a metal ring was recovered by police officers at the scene. Following police investigations, the three appellants were arrested on 15 October 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Folio No: DM.316 Folio Title: Criminal Precedence Content Description
    Folio No: DM.316 Folio Title: Criminal Precedence Content Description: This file contains 65 items most of which are Petitions of Appeals in Criminal Cases ITEM DOCUMENT DIGITIZATION ACCESS DOCUMENT CONTENT NO DATE STATUS STATUS Statement of case re: Mr. Kyle-Little. The prosecution DM.316.001 18/9/1969 had filed criminal charges under Section 4(c) of the Digitized Open Prevention of Corruption Act. Supplemental Petition of Appeal re: Criminal Appeal No. DM.316.002 1965 Digitized Open 2 of 1965. Supplemental Petition of Appeal re: Criminal District DM.316.003 Undated Digitized Open Court Case No. 151 of 1964. Supplemental Petition of Appeal re: Criminal District DM.316.004 28/2/1966 Digitized Open Court Case No. 257 of 1964. Supplemental Petition of Appeal re: Criminal Appeal No. DM.316.005 31/10/1966 Digitized Open X 31 of 1966. Supplemental Petition of Appeal re: High Court Criminal DM.316.006 Undated Digitized Open Case No. 7 of 1966. Supplemental Petition of Appeal re: Criminal Appeal No. DM.316.007 Undated Digitized Open Y.6 of 1966. Petition of Appeal re: High Court Criminal Case No. 17 DM.316.008 5/5/1969 Digitized Open of 1968. DM.316.009 16/12/1966 Re: DM.316.006. Digitized Open DM.316.010 19/12/1969 Petition of Appeal re: Criminal Appeal No. Y. 17 of 1969. Digitized Open DM.316.011 1966 Petition of Appeal re: Criminal Appeal No. X41 of 1966. Digitized Open Draft Petition of Appeal re: Criminal Appeal No. 29 of DM.316.012 1971 Digitized Open 1970.
    [Show full text]
  • Tentative List of Accepted Events for #AWP20
    #AWP20 Accepted Events 2020 AWP Conference & Bookfair March 4 -7, 2020, San Antonio, Texas Henry B. González Convention Center Tentative List of Accepted Events for #AWP20 This list of accepted events for the 2020 Conference & Bookfair is tentative as we wait to receive confirmation from all event organizers and participants. We are also working to ensure that each participant does not participate in more than two events. The final conference schedule will be posted in October at awpwriter.org. The list is organized by event type: panel discussions (pg. 2), pedagogy events (pg. 76), and readings (pg. 87). Within these categories, events are alphabetized by title. Event titles and descriptions have not been edited for grammar or content. AWP believes in freedom of expression and open debate, and the views and opinions expressed in these event titles and descriptions may not necessarily reflect the views of AWP’s staff, board of trustees, or members. Visit the page on How Events Are Selected for details about how the 2020 San Antonio Subcommittee made their selections. AWP’s conference subcommittee worked hard to shape a diverse schedule for #AWP20, creating the best possible balance among genres, presenters, and topics. Every year, there are a number of high-quality events that have to be left off the schedule due to space limitations. Although the pool of submissions was highly competitive, we did our best to ensure that the conference belongs to AWP’s numerous and varied constituencies. From 1,359, we tentatively accepted 480 events involving more than 2,000 panelists. For more information about events relating to particular affinity groups, please see the Community Events of #AWP20.
    [Show full text]
  • Raising the Bar for the Mens Rea Requirement in Common Intention Cases Eunice CHUA Singapore Management University, [email protected]
    Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection School Of Law School of Law 1-2011 Raising the Bar for the Mens Rea Requirement in Common Intention Cases Eunice CHUA Singapore Management University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Citation CHUA, Eunice. Raising the Bar for the Mens Rea Requirement in Common Intention Cases. (2011). Singapore Law Review. 29, 21-34. Research Collection School Of Law. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1767 This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Collection School Of Law by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please email [email protected]. Published in Singapore Law Review, 2011, vol. 29, pp. 21-34. Singapore Law Review (2011) 29 SingL Re, RAISING THE BAR FOR THE MENS REA REQUIREMENT IN COMMON INTENTION CASES Daniel Vjay s/o Katherasan v. Public Prosecutor [2010] 4 Sing. L.R. 1119 CHUA Hui HAN, EUNICE* Recently, the Court of,4ppeal in Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v. Public Prosecutor took the view that the law on common intention was not adequatelysettled in Singaporedespite the 138-year history of s. 34 ofthe Penal Code. It went on to give an extensive review ofthe cases interpretingthe section as well as its Indian equivalent,before settingout the properapproach to take in "twin crime" common intention cases,focusing specifically on the mens rea element requiredin orderto establish construc- tive liabilityforthe secondary crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore Females
    The women executed in Singapore 1973 to 2004. “I am sending you to a better place than this.” With these words Darshan Singh, Singapore’s hangman throughout this period would release the trap doors of the gallows in Changi prison, plummeting the condemned to their death. 16 women would hear these fateful words and their stories are told below. Seven were to hang for murder and nine for drug trafficking. In April 1978 The Straits Times newspaper gained access to death row and described it as follows: 24 cells are arranged in a horse-shoe pattern around a central exercise yard. This has a mesh roof to prevent attempts at helicopter rescue. Condemned inmates are supervised constantly. During their last week inmates are allowed daily visits from family and friends. These are limited to 30 minutes and are no contact, the inmate sits a metre away behind two mesh screens. A last meal can be requested. Condemned inmates wear white uniforms (scrubs). Around 5 a.m. on the Friday of their execution the inmate dresses in prison uniform. A priest will perform the last rites and then the inmate’s wrists are handcuffed behind their backs and black hoods drawn over their heads. They are then led the 20 metres to the execution chamber where they ascend a few steps onto the gallows. In the room are the prison’s Superintendent, his assistant, another senior officer, the prison doctor and the State Coroner. At 6.00 a.m. the hangman pushes the lever to release the trap doors. Death is confirmed by the doctor and the Coroner certifies that death was by judicial hanging.
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Decline of the Mandatory Death Penalty
    THE GLOBAL DECLINE OF THE MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY Historically, at English common law, the death penalty was mandatory for the crime of murder and other violent felonies. Over the last three decades, however, many former British colonies have reformed their capital punishment regimes to permit judicial sentencing discretion, including consideration of mitigating factors. Applying a comparative analysis to the law of capital punishment, Novak examines the constitutional jurisprudence and resulting legislative reform in the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South and Southeast Asia, focusing on the rapid retreat of the mandatory death penalty in the Commonwealth over the last thirty years. The coordinated mandatory death penalty challenges—which have had the consequence of greatly reducing the world’s death row population—represent a case study of how a small group of lawyers can sponsor human rights litigation that incorporates international human rights law into domestic constitutional jurisprudence, ultimately harmonizing criminal justice regimes across borders. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in the study and development of human rights and capital punishment, as well as those exploring the contours of comparative criminal justice. Novak provides a thorough comparative study of the movement away from the mandatory death penalty towards discretionary sentencing in Commonwealth countries, about which we know little. While much of the book deals with contemporary jurisprudence, legal analysis is discussed within an historical and sociological context that is informative and engaging. Carolyn Hoyle, University of Oxford, UK Professor Novak has made an enormous contribution to the eventual abolition of the death penalty, in an incisive study of one of the more insidious aspects of it: its mandatory nature in many states that still retain it.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2010 Contents
    ANNUAL REPORT 2010 CONTENTS VISION, MISSION AND VALUES 01 FOREWORDS 03 CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION 09 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 13 • Opening of the Legal Year • Mass Call • International Agreements • Inaugural LASCO Award THE SUPREME COURT BENCH 19 • Changes to the Bench • Judges’ Profile • Judges’ Participation in Local and Overseas Events 2010 INTERNATIONAL PROFILE 31 • The Middle Templar profiles the Supreme Court and its Building • Rankings in International Surveys • Overseas Conferences, Attachments and Speaking Engagements • Visits by Distinguished Guests STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 39 • Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar • Legal Colloquium • Case Management Officer Scheme • Learning and Management Department & Hearing Support Group • Organisational Accolades TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE 45 • Workload Statistics • Waiting Periods • Caseload and Disposal Relating to Disciplinary Proceedings in 2010 QUALITY OF JUSTICE 53 • Significant Decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Court of 3 Judges • Electronic Practice Directions and Electronic Rules of Court • New Amendments to the Practice Directions and Rules of Court ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS 63 STAFF AND ORGANISATION 65 • Corporate Challenge • Learning Day • Staff Welfare Activities • Staff Awards 2010 • Corporate Calendar 2010 VISION To establish and maintain a world-class Judiciary. MISSION To superintend the administration of justice. VALUES Integrity and Independence Public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court rests on its integrity and the transparency of its processes. The public must be assured that court decisions are fair and independent, that court staff are incorruptible, and that court records are accurate. Quality Public Service As a public institution dedicated to the administration of justice, the Supreme Court seeks to meet the needs of court users, with an emphasis on accessibility, quality and the timely delivery of services.
    [Show full text]
  • Miss Echo January
    www.ipohecho.com.my HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL MY FRIENDS IPOH IN IPOH echoechoYour Community Newspaper Serving the people of Ipoh, Chemor, Sg.Siput,Taiping, Kuala Kangsar, Gopeng, ISSUE Kampar, Batu Gajah, Air Tawar, Sitiawan, Lumut and Teluk Intan. JERRY VANDERBILT FREE for collection from our office and selected outlets, on 1st & 16th of the month. 30 sen for delivery to your house by news 65 vendors within Perak. RM 1 prepaid postage for mailing within Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. JANUARY 1-15, 2009 PP 14252/10/2009(022651) INDULGENT DELIGHTS 2009 WISHING ALL READERS A HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR MISS ECHO JANUARY Name: One of six delectable suites in Indulgence Boutique Hotel Amanda Fong Occupation: Julie Song has single-handedly put Ipoh on the culinary Student lifestyle map, winning yet another international Hobbies: recognition for Most Innovative F&B Personality from Travelling HAPA, Hospitality Asia Platinum Awards 2008-2010 Reading The quality I Regional Series. This will be the fourth international admire most: recognition for excellence that has made her passion, Loyalty Indulgence Restaurant and Living synonymous with fine dining and living not only in Ipoh but throughout Malaysia. (More on page 2). 2 IPOH ECHO January 1 - 15, 2009 Your Community Newspaper INDULGENCE RESTAURANT AND LIVING - IPOH’S VERY OWN Hobby turned Passion or Julie, it all began as Julie’s passion for fine to Sunday, Julie tested the Budaya, Julie brought her Fa hobby for cooking cuisine continued una- market. magic touch in decorating that turned into an all- bated while in University When the response to the fore and created a consuming passion, a love in London where she was positive, Julie reno- whimsical ambiance com- affair of thirteen years would use every opportu- vated the whole shop in bining eclectic touches that has seen her small nity to dine in exclusive August that year and a new with comfort and luxury.
    [Show full text]