Muhammad Ridzuan v AG: Judicial Review of PP's Decision on Substantive Assistance Certificate under Misuse of Drugs Act

Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali appealed against the High Court's decision to deny him leave for judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's decision not to grant him a certificate of substantive assistance under the Misuse of Drugs Act, while his co-accused, Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim, received one. Both were convicted of drug trafficking. Ridzuan argued the decision breached Article 12 of the Constitution and was made in bad faith. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding Ridzuan had not established a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of impropriety.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the Public Prosecutor's decision not to grant a certificate of substantive assistance. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

4 October 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Ailene Chou of Attorney-General’s Chambers Caleb Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Rajan Supramaniam of Hilborne Law LLC James Bahadur Masih of James Masih & Co Chuan Wei Ping of W P Chuang & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ailene Chou	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Caleb Tan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Francis Ng	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Rajan Supramaniam	Hilborne Law LLC
James Bahadur Masih	James Masih & Co
Chuan Wei Ping	W P Chuang & Co

4. Facts

Appellant and Abdul Haleem were both convicted of drug trafficking charges.
Abdul Haleem received a certificate of substantive assistance; Appellant did not.
Appellant argued the PP's decision was a breach of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Appellant claimed he provided sufficient information to CNB.
Appellant argued he should have been invited to provide more information after the trial.
The PP stated there were material differences between the information provided by the Appellant and Abdul Haleem.
The PP determined that the Appellant had not substantively assisted CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities.

5. Formal Citations

Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 131 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 53
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General, , [2014] 4 SLR 773
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another, , [2013] 3 SLR 734
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2014] 3 SLR 721

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-02-01	Appellant met Rosli who offered to supply drugs.
2010-05-04	Appellant agreed to purchase heroin from Afad.
2010-05-05	Abdul Haleem collected first half of heroin from jockey.
2010-05-06	Abdul Haleem collected second delivery of heroin from jockey; Appellant and Abdul Haleem arrested.
2013-02-01	Criminal trial began.
2013-04-01	Criminal trial concluded.
2013-05-20	Grounds of decision for the criminal trial were issued.
2014-02-27	Court of Appeal heard CCA 3/2013 and CM 68/2013; CCA 3/2013 and CM 68/2013 dismissed.
2014-03-01	Appellant filed Originating Summons No 348 of 2014.
2014-04-16	CNB officer met with the Appellant to record information.
2014-07-17	Judge heard OS 348/2014 and dismissed the application.
2014-09-12	Judge’s grounds of decision dismissing OS 348/2014 were issued.
2015-03-05	Appellant volunteered information to CNB.
2015-03-08	PP determined that the Appellant had not substantively assisted CNB.
2015-03-12	First hearing of the appeal.
2015-04-07	Appeal re-scheduled for continued hearing.
2015-05-08	Mr Ng filed an affidavit on behalf of the Respondent.
2015-05-14	Mr Ng’s second affidavit confirmed that there is a material difference between the information given by Abdul Haleem as compared to that given by the Appellant.
2015-07-08	Mr Masih wrote to the Registry stating that the Appellant wanted an opportunity to file an additional affidavit.
2015-07-24	Appellant filed an affidavit.
2015-10-05	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Equal Protection Clause
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant had not established a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the non-certification decision was in breach of Art 12 of the Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
Bad Faith in Decision Making
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant had not established a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the PP acted in bad faith in making the non-certification decision.
- Category: Administrative
Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Discretion
- Outcome: The court outlined the test to determine if leave should be granted to commence judicial review proceedings.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the PP acted in bad faith
Mandatory order for the PP to grant a certificate of substantive assistance
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 Appeals
Judicial Review
Constitutional Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 773	Singapore	Cited as the High Court decision under appeal, which dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review.
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 734	Singapore	Cited for the grounds of decision for the criminal trial where both the Appellant and Abdul Haleem were convicted.
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 721	Singapore	Cited as the Court of Appeal's decision dismissing the Appellant's criminal motion to challenge the non-certification decision due to incorrect procedure.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis	Court of Three Judges	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239	Singapore	Cited for the principle of constitutional supremacy and the court's power to review executive acts.
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 49	Singapore	Cited for the principle that decisions of constitutional office holders are presumed to be made in conformity with the law and the burden of proof lies on the applicant to rebut this presumption.
United States of America v John Stevens LeRose	US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	Yes	United States of America v John Stevens LeRose 219 F 3d 335 (4th Cir, 2000)	United States	Cited as an example of a US case where a similar challenge was brought against a government decision regarding a motion for reduced sentence based on substantial assistance.
Public Prosecutor v Ang Soon Huat	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 2 SLR(R) 246	Singapore	Cited for the test for breach of the equal protection clause in Article 12 of the Constitution.
Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 542	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where the test for breach of the equal protection clause in Article 12 of the Constitution was applied.
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1189	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the clemency process under Art 22P of the Constitution was justiciable and reviewable on the ground of breach of the rule against bias.
Cannock Chase District Council v Kelly	Not Available	Yes	[1978] 1 WLR 1	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of 'bad faith' as dishonesty.
Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil Service	House of Lords	Yes	[1985] 1 AC 374	England and Wales	Cited for the grounds of judicial review in administrative law, including procedural impropriety.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(2)(b)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(4)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 12	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Certificate of substantive assistance
Judicial review
Public Prosecutor
Misuse of Drugs Act
Article 12
Equal protection
Bad faith
Prima facie case
Reasonable suspicion
Drug trafficking
CNB
Operational effectiveness

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Judicial review
Substantive assistance certificate
Public Prosecutor
Article 12
Bad faith

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Constitutional Law	80
Administrative Law	70
Criminal Law	60
Criminal Procedure	60
Statutory Interpretation	50
Sentencing	40

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Constitutional Law
Administrative Law
Drug Trafficking
Judicial Review