Mohammad Faizal v PP: Constitutionality of Enhanced Drug Penalties under Misuse of Drugs Act
The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed Criminal Motions No 36 and 37 of 2012 on January 11, 2013, filed by Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and Amazi bin Hawasi against the Public Prosecutor. The motions sought leave to refer questions of law regarding the constitutionality of s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act, concerning enhanced punishment for repeat drug offenders, after the High Court ruled against them. The Court of Appeal found the motions without merit and remitted the cases back to the District Court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Criminal Motions Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed motions challenging the constitutionality of enhanced penalties under the Misuse of Drugs Act, upholding the High Court's decision.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Tan Ken Hwee of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sandy Baggett of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kwek Chin Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu | Applicant | Individual | Motion Dismissed | Lost | |
| Amazi bin Hawasi | Applicant | Individual | Motion Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Ken Hwee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sandy Baggett | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kwek Chin Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| S K Kumar | M/s S K Kumar Law Practice LLP |
4. Facts
- Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and Amazi bin Hawasi challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions in s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- The challenged provisions relate to enhanced punishment for repeat drug offenders.
- The High Court answered the stated questions in the negative, ruling that the impugned provisions of the MDA did not violate the principle of separation of powers.
- The Applicants applied for leave to refer the same two questions of law to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed both Criminal Motions for leave.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter, Criminal Motions No 36 and 37 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 1
- Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor, , [2012] 4 SLR 947
- Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor, , [2012] 4 SLR 981
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal Motions for leave dismissed | |
| Grounds of decision delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Separation of Powers
- Outcome: The Court held that the impugned provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act did not violate the principle of separation of powers.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 947
- [2012] 4 SLR 981
- Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimum Sentences
- Outcome: The Court upheld the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed under s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Constitutional
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to refer questions of law to the Court of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 947 | Singapore | The High Court decision that the appeal arose from, regarding the constitutionality of s 33A(1)(a), (d), and (e) of the MDA. |
| Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 981 | Singapore | The High Court decision that the appeal arose from, regarding the constitutionality of s 33A(5)(a) of the MDA. |
| Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 247 | Singapore | Cited regarding the limited avenue afforded by s 397 and that it is to be exercised sparingly. |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and other applications | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 966 | Singapore | Cited regarding the conditions which must be satisfied before a reference will be granted under s 397(1). |
| Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 859 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles established by case law under s 60 of the SCJA remain fully relevant in the interpretation and application of s 397. |
| A Ragunathan v Pendakwa Raya | Federal Court | Yes | [1982] 1 MLJ 139 | Malaysia | Cited with approval regarding what constitutes a question of law of public interest. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 388 | Singapore | Cited with approval regarding what constitutes a question of law of public interest. |
| Phang Wah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 60 | Singapore | Cited regarding the limited avenue afforded by s 397 and that it is to be exercised sparingly. |
| Ng Ai Tiong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 490 | Singapore | Cited regarding the limited avenue afforded by s 397 and that it is to be exercised sparingly. |
| Cigar Affair v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 648 | Singapore | Cited regarding a question of law does not necessarily constitute a question of public interest just because it involves the construction or interpretation of a statutory provision which could also apply to other members of the public. |
| M V Balakrishnan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 846 | Singapore | Cited regarding in instances where the law has been authoritatively laid down and there is no conflict of authority, the court will, in the interests of finality, guard the exercise of its discretion most jealously. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 681 | Singapore | Cited regarding the third precondition, the question must have arisen in the course of the appeal and the determination of which by this court must have affected the event of the appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Choo Ching Hwa | High Court | Yes | [1990] 3 MLJ 229 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the requirements of s 66(1) are that the question must have arisen in the course of the appeal, and more importantly, the determination of the question has affected the event of the appeal. |
| Ong Boon Kheng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 199 | Singapore | Cited regarding the courts should be astute to sieve out appeals dressed in s 60 SCJA disguise. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Act 15 of 2012) | Singapore |
| s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 395 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 15 of 2012) | Singapore |
| s 396 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 15 of 2012) | Singapore |
| s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 15 of 2012) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Separation of Powers
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Enhanced Punishment
- Mandatory Minimum Sentence
- Public Interest
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Constitutionality
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Drug Offences
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Separation of Powers
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Constitutional Law | 75 |
| Separation of Powers | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Drug Law