District Judge Neighbour's judgment has been criticized on the basis that his conclusions that the tracts were objectionable and that the accused persons knew about the seditious contents of the tracts were insufficient to fulfil the standard of proof. The High Court in "Koh Hak Boon v. Public Prosecutor" (1993) established that "the court must assume the position of the actual individual involved (i.e. including his knowledge and experience) [subjective inquiry, but must reason (i.e. infer from the facts known to such individual) from that position like an objective reasonable man inquiry". However, instead of applying this test, District Judge Neighbour simply asserted that the accused persons must have known and/or had reason to believe that the tracts were objectionable and had a seditious tendency.