Kok Li-en

Kok Li-en is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2015. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law and sentencing. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Kok Li-en has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal law and criminal revision.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Criminal conspiracy	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Sentencing Principles	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Bail	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Public Prosecutor	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Consent of Public Prosecutor	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Irregularities in proceedings	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Defective consent of Public Prosecutor	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Curative powers of court	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Common Gaming Houses Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Parity Principle	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Rule of Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Betting Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Prosecution’s duty to assist the court in respect of sentencing	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kok Li-en has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Kok Li-en has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Allen & Gledhill LLP	2 cases	100% of cases	Veeramani Manikam v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Drug Importation Conviction Allowed(Aug 2015) Lim Bee Ngan Karen v PP: Parity Principle & Sentencing for Betting Act Offences(Jul 2015)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Kok Li-en's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Kok Li-en's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Partial	1(50%)	50%
Won	1(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Veeramani Manikam v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Drug Importation Conviction Allowed 02 Aug 2015 Veeramani Manikam (Appellant)Won	02 Aug 2015	Veeramani Manikam (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed and conviction set aside.
2	Lim Bee Ngan Karen v PP: Parity Principle & Sentencing for Betting Act Offences 15 Jul 2015 Lim Bee Ngan Karen (Appellant)Partial	15 Jul 2015	Lim Bee Ngan Karen (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partThe imprisonment terms for the Third to the Fifth Proceeded Charges were replaced with an imprisonment term of four months for each of these three Proceeded Charges. The imprisonment terms for the Third Proceeded Charge and the Fifth Proceeded Charge are to run consecutively, making a total imprisonment term of eight months for the Third to the Fifth Proceeded Charges. The fines imposed by the Sentencing Judge for all five Proceeded Charges as well as the default imprisonment terms in respect of those fines were upheld.