Section 160: Statement ruled admissible by differently constituted Bench to that
consolidated text (as at 2017). juris shows the text as it was consolidated; it does not confirm that this is the law in force today.
160. Statement ruled admissible by differently constituted Bench to that
delivering judgment—Unless the word “hearing” in section 85 (1) is to be
construed as hearing of questions of fact to the exclusion of questions of
law, it is not possible to accept the proposition that, notwithstanding the
judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ng Wong v R
[1987] 1 WLR 1356, that of the Privy Council in Curpen v R in (1990), the
case of the appellant could be split into 2 different hearings judged by a differently constituted Bench. Meghu v State (1993).