Roslan bin Bakar v Public Prosecutor: Reopening Concluded Criminal Appeals & Recantation Evidence
In Roslan bin Bakar v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Roslan bin Bakar's criminal motion to reopen his concluded appeal against his conviction for drug trafficking. Roslan sought to introduce new evidence based on a co-accused's recantation. The court, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Tay Yong Kwang J, found the recantation evidence unreliable and insufficient to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, reinforcing the high threshold for reopening concluded criminal appeals.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal Motion dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Roslan bin Bakar's motion to reopen his drug trafficking appeal based on recantation evidence, emphasizing the need for reliable and compelling new evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Criminal Motion dismissed | Won | Kow Keng Siong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mansoor Amir of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Roslan bin Bakar | Applicant | Individual | Criminal Motion dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kow Keng Siong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mansoor Amir | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kertar Singh s/o Guljar Singh | Kertar Law LLC |
| R S Bajwa | Bajwa & Co |
4. Facts
- Applicant and co-accused were convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death.
- Their appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
- Co-accused later signed a handwritten statement claiming the applicant was not involved.
- Applicant filed a motion seeking leave to adduce this new evidence and a retrial.
- The CNB was allegedly not informed of the co-accused's statement.
- The court found inconsistencies in the applicant's accounts of how he learned of the co-accused's plan to 'come clean'.
- The investigating officers denied being told of any conspiracy to frame the applicant.
5. Formal Citations
- Roslan bin Bakar v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 1 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 29
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant and co-accused convicted and sentenced to death for trafficking in drugs | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal | |
| Parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 | |
| Pausi signed a handwritten statement | |
| Applicant filed Criminal Motion No 1 of 2015 | |
| Application heard and dismissed | |
| Judgment in Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor [2016] SGCA 21 handed down |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Recantation Evidence
- Outcome: The court found the recantation evidence unreliable and insufficient to warrant reopening the concluded criminal appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reliability of recantation evidence
- Sufficiency of recantation evidence to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 2 SLR 192
- [1994] 2 SLR(R) 1017
- [1996] 1 SLR(R) 958
- Power to Reopen Concluded Criminal Appeals
- Outcome: The court affirmed its inherent jurisdiction to reopen concluded criminal appeals but emphasized the high threshold for doing so, requiring sufficient material to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Test for reopening concluded criminal appeals
- Related Cases:
- [2016] SGCA 21
- [2010] 2 SLR 192
8. Remedies Sought
- Retrial
- Leave to adduce fresh evidence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- Law Enforcement
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] SGCA 21 | Singapore | Affirmed the test set out in Yong Vui Kong and elaborated on its requirements in detail regarding the Court of Appeal's power to review a concluded criminal appeal. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 192 | Singapore | Relied upon in coming to the decision in the present case and affirmed by Kho Jabing. Sets out the test for when the Court of Appeal may exercise its power of review to reopen a concluded criminal appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pausi bin Jefridin and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 121 | Singapore | Trial judgment where the Applicant and Pausi were convicted of drug trafficking. Referred to for the Judge's findings and the Applicant's defense. |
| Ladd v Marshall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 748 | England and Wales | Cited by the Applicant regarding the admission of fresh evidence, but the court found it not perfectly apposite as it concerned the admission of fresh evidence on appeal, not after the appeal had been heard and dismissed. |
| Abdullah bin A Rahman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 1017 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the court's jurisdiction to reopen a concluded appeal to receive fresh evidence. Distinguished as not being a 'true case of new evidence'. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited as one of three decisions where the court reconsidered the substantive merits of a concluded criminal appeal, but did not involve applications for leave to admit new factual evidence. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited as one of three decisions where the court reconsidered the substantive merits of a concluded criminal appeal, but did not involve applications for leave to admit new factual evidence. |
| Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 563 | Singapore | Cited as one of three decisions where the court reconsidered the substantive merits of a concluded criminal appeal, but did not involve applications for leave to admit new factual evidence. |
| Abdul Rashid bin Mohamed and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 656 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to Abdullah's argument that the trial court erred in relying on Rashid's evidence to convict him. |
| Low Khoon Hai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 958 | Singapore | Cited as instructive regarding the admission of recantation evidence, particularly the caution required when dealing with a 'confessed liar'. |
| Alex J Carpitcher v Commonwealth of Virginia | Virginia Supreme Court | Yes | 641 SE2d 486 | United States | Cited for the principle that 'recantation evidence is generally questionable in character and is widely viewed by courts with suspicion because of the obvious opportunities and temptations for fraud'. |
| R v Keogh (No 2) | Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia | Yes | [2014] SASCFC 136 | Australia | Cited for the position taken in Australia, where the evidence of a recanting witness may be received as 'fresh evidence', although with the very important caveat that anxious scrutiny must be given to such evidence because of the dangers associated with its use. |
| The Queen v AHK | Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2001] VSCA 220 | Australia | Cited for the position taken in Australia, where the evidence of a recanting witness may be received as 'fresh evidence', although with the very important caveat that anxious scrutiny must be given to such evidence because of the dangers associated with its use. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 30 of 2012) s 27(6) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Recantation evidence
- Miscarriage of justice
- Fresh evidence
- Concluded criminal appeal
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Substantive assistance
- Drug trafficking
- Conspiracy
- Reliability of evidence
- Sufficiency of evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal appeal
- Drug trafficking
- Recantation
- Fresh evidence
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 75 |
| Criminal Revision | 70 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Recantation evidence | 50 |
| Forgery | 10 |
| Arbitration | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence