Muhammad bin Kadar v PP: Re-Sentencing for Murder under Penal Code s 302
In Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard a criminal motion for re-sentencing following amendments to the Penal Code. Muhammad bin Kadar was previously convicted of murder under s 302. The court was tasked with clarifying under which limb of s 300 the murder fell. The court dismissed the application, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Kadar was guilty of murder under s 300(a), thereby affirming the original death sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed and the sentence of death imposed on the Applicant affirmed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal affirmed Muhammad bin Kadar's death sentence, finding him guilty of murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Sentence Affirmed | Won | Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kevin Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhammad bin Kadar | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anandan Bala | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kevin Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Peter Ong Lip Cheng | Templars Law LLC |
| Amarick Singh Gill | Trident Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was previously convicted of murder under s 302 of the Penal Code.
- Amendments were made to the Penal Code via the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012.
- The Applicant applied for re-sentencing, arguing he was guilty of murder under s 300(c).
- The Public Prosecutor opposed, arguing the Applicant was guilty of murder under s 300(a).
- The Applicant admitted to stabbing the deceased multiple times with a knife and chopper.
- The deceased suffered more than 110 incised and stab wounds, leading to her death.
- The Applicant stated he intended to kill the deceased to prevent her from identifying him.
5. Formal Citations
- Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 43 of 2014, [2014] SGCA 48
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Murder committed | |
| Penal Code amendments came into effect | |
| Applicant sought clarification on Criminal Motion hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Re-sentencing for Murder
- Outcome: The court determined that the applicant was guilty of murder within the meaning of s 300(a) of the Penal Code and affirmed the sentence of death.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of s 300(a) of the Penal Code
- Outcome: The court clarified that the applicant's actions fell within the meaning of s 300(a) because he intended to cause the death of the deceased.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Re-sentencing
- Clarification of the meaning of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the detailed facts of the case and the dismissal of the applicant's appeal against his conviction for murder. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ismil bin Kadar and Another | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 84 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's judgment convicting both accused and rejecting the applicant's defence of diminished responsibility. |
| Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1058 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that motive, while not an essential element of a crime, can bolster the inference that an intention to commit the offence was existent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 302 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 s 4(5) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 300 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 188(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 230(1)(d) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Re-sentencing
- Section 300(a)
- Section 300(c)
- Intention to cause death
- Diminished responsibility
- Penal Code Amendment Act 2012
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Re-sentencing
- Penal Code
- Section 300(a)
- Section 300(c)
- Intention
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Murder | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Re-sentencing | 85 |
| Penal Code | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
| Public Prosecutor | 50 |
| Consequences of Prosecution’s non-disclosure | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Statutory Interpretation