Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor: Reopening of Concluded Criminal Appeals and Abuse of Process
In Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Hishamrudin's criminal motion on 15 March 2018, seeking to reopen his concluded appeal against his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking. The court, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, and Hoo Sheau Peng J, found that the applicant failed to present new and compelling evidence and that his actions constituted an abuse of process, primarily aimed at delaying his execution.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal motion dismissed in its entirety.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Hishamrudin's criminal motion to reopen his concluded drug trafficking appeal, citing insufficient new evidence and abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion dismissed | Won | Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers Rajiv Rai of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hishamrudin bin Mohd | Applicant | Individual | Criminal motion dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anandan Bala | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rajiv Rai | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted of two charges of trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- The first charge was a non-capital charge for trafficking in not less than 3.56g of diamorphine.
- The second charge was a capital charge for trafficking in not less than 34.94g of diamorphine.
- The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for the non-capital charge.
- The applicant was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty for the capital charge.
- The Public Prosecutor did not issue the applicant with a certificate under s 33B(2)(b) of the MDA.
- The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 3 July 2017.
- The applicant filed Originating Summons No 289 of 2018 seeking leave for judicial review of the Judgment on 12 March 2018.
- The applicant applied to convert that summons into a criminal motion to be filed before the Court of Appeal to reopen the Judgment.
5. Formal Citations
- Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 6 of 2018, [2018] SGCA 15
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) revised. | |
| Trial judge’s decision found at Public Prosecutor v Hishamrudin bin Mohd [2016] SGHC 56. | |
| Appeal dismissed by the Court in Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGCA 41. | |
| Applicant filed Originating Summons No 289 of 2018 seeking leave for judicial review of the Judgment. | |
| Criminal Motion No 6 of 2018 dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Reopening of Concluded Criminal Appeals
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant did not meet the requirements for reopening a concluded criminal appeal because the material presented was not new and compelling.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- New and compelling evidence
- Miscarriage of justice
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's actions constituted an abuse of process, as the motion was filed at the eleventh hour to delay the execution of the sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Delaying execution of sentence
- Collateral attack on criminal decision
8. Remedies Sought
- Judicial Review
- Reopening of Criminal Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kho Jabing v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1273 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that using the court’s civil jurisdiction to mount a collateral attack on a decision made by the court in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction is an impermissible abuse of the process of the court. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for a review of a concluded criminal appeal. |
| Chijioke Stephen Obioha v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of finality in legal decisions and the prevention of abuse of process to delay execution of sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hishamrudin bin Mohd | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 56 | Singapore | Refers to the trial judge’s decision which was appealed against. |
| Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 41 | Singapore | Refers to the applicant's appeal against the trial judge's decision, which was dismissed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| 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 5(2) of the 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 |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Abuse of Process
- Reopening of Appeal
- New and Compelling Evidence
- Finality of Legal Decisions
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Appeal
- Drug Trafficking
- Abuse of Process
- Singapore Law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
- Judicial Review