Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor: Review of Drug Trafficking Conviction and Sentencing
Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa applied for leave to review a prior Court of Appeal decision affirming his conviction and mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal, comprising Tay Yong Kwang JA, dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient material to suggest a miscarriage of justice. The original case involved a charge of trafficking diamorphine, where Mustaffa and another individual, Zuraimy bin Musa, were jointly tried. Mustaffa was found guilty, and his appeal was dismissed in the earlier judgment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Leave application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for review of a drug trafficking conviction and mandatory death sentence. The court dismissed the application, finding no miscarriage of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Siaw of Attorney-General’s Chambers Li Yihong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Muhamad Imaduddien bin Abd Karim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa | Applicant | Individual | Leave application dismissed | Lost | |
| Zuraimy bin Musa | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Siaw | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Li Yihong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhamad Imaduddien bin Abd Karim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death.
- The applicant sought a review of the Court of Appeal's decision affirming his conviction.
- The applicant argued failure of prosecutorial duty to call material witnesses.
- The applicant argued failure to consider alternative sentencing under s 33B(2) of the MDA.
- The applicant argued failure to correctly classify his role in the offending.
- The applicant argued failure to caution him on his right to silence.
- The applicant argued the standard applied by the trial judge when considering his state of mind.
5. Formal Citations
- Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 29 of 2020, [2020] SGCA 97
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Drug trafficking offense occurred. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered earlier judgment. | |
| President ordered execution of death sentence. | |
| Criminal Motion filed for leave to make a review application. | |
| President ordered a respite of the execution. | |
| Application filed under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code. | |
| Prosecution filed affidavits objecting to the application. |
7. Legal Issues
- Review of Criminal Conviction
- Outcome: The court found no legitimate basis for review and dismissed the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] SGCA 91
- [2019] SGCA 73
- Failure of Prosecutorial Duty
- Outcome: The court held that the new law pertaining to the Prosecution’s additional disclosure obligations that resulted from Nabill has no application to the case here.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
- Applicability of Alternative Sentencing Regime
- Outcome: The court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements in s 33B(2) and therefore did not qualify for consideration under the alternative sentencing regime.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 1374
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the issue of the admissibility of the contemporaneous statements was dealt with fully in the earlier CA judgment.
- Category: Substantive
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant was found to have known for a fact that the four bundles were drugs and that they contained diamorphine. There was therefore no issue about any presumption of knowledge or wilful blindness.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 254
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Conviction
- Respite from Execution
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 73 | Singapore | The earlier decision of the Court of Appeal which the applicant sought to review. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 91 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the threshold for a review application. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that failure to call a material witness could result in the Prosecution failing to satisfy its evidential burden. |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1374 | Singapore | Cited regarding the responsibility of the Defence, Prosecution, and trial judge to consider the applicability of s 33B(2) and 33B(3) of the MDA prior to sentencing. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that wilful blindness has no application to the presumption of knowledge in s 18(2) of the MDA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394I of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(6)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(a) to (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 34 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Review Application
- Drug Trafficking
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Material Witnesses
- Alternative Sentencing
- Right to Silence
- Presumption of Knowledge
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Motion
- Review Application
- Drug Trafficking
- Death Penalty
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Appeal | 80 |
| Penal Code | 60 |
| Confiscation and forfeiture | 10 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Judicial Review