Muhammad Ridzuan v AG: Judicial Review of PP's Decision on Substantive Assistance under MDA
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali applied for judicial review against the Public Prosecutor's decision not to grant him a certificate of substantive assistance under s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, following his conviction for drug trafficking. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bad faith or unconstitutionality in the Public Prosecutor's decision. The court held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of a breach of Article 12 of the Constitution.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's decision not to grant a certificate of substantive assistance under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Application dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Ailene Chou of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ailene Chou | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Francis Ng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rajan Supramaniam | Hilborne Law LLC |
| Masih James Bahadur | James Masih & Company |
| Dr Chuang Wei Ping | WP Chuang & Co |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and faced a mandatory death sentence.
- The Public Prosecutor did not grant the Applicant a certificate of substantive assistance under s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- The Applicant argued that he and his co-accused, Abdul Haleem, participated in the same criminal conduct.
- Abdul Haleem received a certificate of substantive assistance and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The Applicant claimed he provided the same information as Abdul Haleem but was not given the same opportunity to assist the CNB.
- The Applicant sought judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's decision, alleging bad faith and a violation of Article 12 of the Constitution.
- The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review.
5. Formal Citations
- Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 348 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 179
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant agreed to purchase one "ball" of heroin from Afad for $7,000. | |
| Gemuk called the Applicant and informed him that a jockey would be delivering half a “ball” of heroin. | |
| Gemuk called the Applicant and informed him to prepare to collect the remaining half “ball” of heroin. | |
| Applicant and Abdul Haleem were arrested by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau. | |
| Trial commenced. | |
| Hearing of the appeal. | |
| Applicant filed the present application. | |
| Hearing. Application dismissed. | |
| Decision Date | |
| Appeal to this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Discretion
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant failed to establish an arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting the remedies sought.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of review
- Bad faith
- Malice
- Unconstitutionality
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 2 SLR 49
- [2014] 1 SLR 345
- Breach of Equal Protection Clause
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence that the Public Prosecutor had deliberately or arbitrarily discriminated against him.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
- Discriminatory treatment
- Unequal application of law
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542
- Mandatory Death Sentence
- Outcome: The court found that the argument based on Art 9(1) necessarily fails because the Applicant is unable to establish a prima facie breach of Art 12.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the PP acted in bad faith
- Mandatory order for the PP to grant a certificate under s 33B(2)(b) of the MDA
- Order for the case to be remitted to the trial judge for re-sentencing
- Continuation of stay of execution
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Public Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | Sets out the background facts to the Applicant’s drug trafficking convictions. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Sets out the background facts to the Applicant’s drug trafficking convictions and the Court of Appeal dismissed CM 68/2013 on the basis that the Applicant had adopted the wrong procedure. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 336 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that an accused cannot be expected to provide information to assist the CNB before the end of the trial. |
| Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court only requires leave to be obtained in relation to an application for prerogative orders. |
| Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 124 | Singapore | The AG raised a procedural objection with regard to the inclusion of the prayer for a declaration at this stage of the leave proceedings was broadly similar to that raised in the earlier decision of Cheong Chun Yin v AG. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | The principles governing the grant of leave to commence judicial review proceedings are well settled. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Observed that an exercise of an executive decision-making power, even one with a constitutional status, cannot be allowed to override a fundamental liberty enshrined in the Constitution. |
| Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542 | Singapore | An executive act may be unconstitutional if it amounts to intentional and arbitrary discrimination. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ang Soon Huat | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 246 | Singapore | Arbitrariness implies the lack of any rationality. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Bad faith may be established where the power is exercised for an extraneous or improper purpose. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 507 | Singapore | Bad faith may be established where the power is exercised for an extraneous or improper purpose. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Bad faith may be established where the decision is made in a wholly arbitrary or capricious fashion. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Art 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Art 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (No 30 of 2012) | Singapore |
| s 27(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (No 30 of 2012) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Public Prosecutor
- Certificate of substantive assistance
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Bad faith
- Article 12
- Constitution
- Drug trafficking
- Courier
- Central Narcotics Bureau
- Prosecutorial discretion
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial review
- Public Prosecutor
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Substantive assistance
- Bad faith
- Article 12
- Constitution
- Drug trafficking
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 50 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 30 |
| Constitutional Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Judicial Review