Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor: Re-opening of Appeal for Drug Trafficking

Norasharee bin Gous applied to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore to re-open his appeal against his conviction for abetting drug trafficking. The court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, and Tay Yong Kwang JCA, dismissed the application, finding no miscarriage of justice based on the new evidence presented. The court upheld its original decision and the trial judge's findings, emphasizing the lack of credibility in the new witness testimony and the absence of any demonstrable error in the initial judgment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application to re-open the appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to re-open an appeal in a drug trafficking case, finding no miscarriage of justice.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication to re-open the appeal dismissedWon
Daphne Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Yang Ziliang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Norasharee Bin GousApplicantIndividualApplication to re-open the appeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Daphne LimAttorney-General’s Chambers
Yang ZiliangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ravi s/o MadasamyCarson Law Chambers

4. Facts

  1. Applicant was convicted of abetting drug trafficking.
  2. Applicant claimed he was with Lolok at VivoCity on the day of the offense.
  3. Lolok provided a statutory declaration supporting the applicant's alibi.
  4. Applicant alleged his former counsel failed to call Lolok as a witness.
  5. Trial Judge found Lolok's evidence inconsistent and not credible.
  6. No logbook was produced to support Lolok's claim of recording the events.
  7. Lolok did not inform the CNB that he was with the applicant on the day in question.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 16 of 2018, [2021] SGCA 42
  2. Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and another matter, , [2017] 1 SLR 820
  3. Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Yazid Bin Md Yusof and others, , [2016] SGHC 102
  4. Public Prosecutor v Norasharee bin Gous, , [2020] SGHC 189
  5. Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor, , [2016] 3 SLR 135

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicant met Yazid at VivoCity and instructed him to collect drugs.
Yazid collected drugs from a Malaysian courier.
Trial Judge convicted the applicant and imposed the mandatory death penalty.
Court of Appeal affirmed the Judge’s finding concerning the meeting between the applicant and Yazid on 23 October 2013. The applicant’s conviction was upheld.
Applicant took out an application seeking to re-open the appeal.
Court heard the application and remitted the matter to the trial Judge to receive the evidence of Lolok.
Supreme Court Registry informed the parties that the stay of the remittal order was lifted.
Trial Judge found no new evidence that would have altered the findings in his earlier decision.
Judgment reserved
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Re-opening of Concluded Appeal
    • Outcome: The Court held that there was insufficient material to conclude that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sufficiency of new evidence
      • Miscarriage of justice
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 135
  2. Alibi Defence
    • Outcome: The Court found the alibi defence to be an afterthought and not credible.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Credibility of alibi witness
      • Consistency of evidence
  3. Conduct of Defence Counsel
    • Outcome: The Court found the allegations against the defence counsel to be unfounded.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to call witness
      • Miscommunication with client

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Re-opening of Appeal
  2. Quashing of Conviction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals
  • Drug Offences

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 820SingaporeThe judgment being appealed was the direct result of this case.
Kho Jabing v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 135SingaporeCited for the applicable principles for reopening concluded appeals.
Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Yazid Bin Md Yusof and othersHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 102SingaporeCited for the trial Judge's acceptance of Yazid's testimony.
Public Prosecutor v Norasharee bin GousHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 189SingaporeCited for the trial Judge's findings after the remittal hearing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Alibi
  • Miscarriage of Justice
  • Statutory Declaration
  • Remittal Hearing
  • Logbook
  • VivoCity

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Criminal Appeal
  • Alibi Defence
  • Singapore Law
  • Miscarriage of Justice

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act90
Criminal Law75
Criminal Procedure60
Abetment60
Appeal50
Penal Code40
Evidence40
Adduction of new evidence40
Prosecutorial Discretion30
Statutory Interpretation30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Appeals