Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application for Miscarriage of Justice
Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan applied for leave to file a criminal motion seeking a review of his conviction and sentence for drug offenses, which had been affirmed by the High Court in MA 9309. The High Court, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the requirements under s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code, as his arguments had been previously canvassed and did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed summarily.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for criminal review of Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan's conviction and sentence for drug offenses was dismissed due to insufficient grounds.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed summarily | Won | Louis Ngia of Attorney-General’s Chambers Norman Yew of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed summarily | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Louis Ngia | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Norman Yew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted on three charges related to drug consumption and possession.
- The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed.
- The applicant filed a criminal motion seeking a review of the High Court’s decision.
- The applicant argued that the straw of diamorphine was not found on him.
- The applicant argued that his urine was not procured by the CNB officers in accordance with the urine procurement procedure.
- The applicant argued that the urine test results pertaining to Charge 1 were unreliable.
- The applicant argued that he received the certified copy of the Record of Proceedings for MA 9309 only four days before the hearing.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 82
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Drugs found in applicant's possession. | |
| State Court decision issued in Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan [2019] SGDC 282. | |
| High Court affirmed the decision of the State Court and dismissed the applicant’s appeal in MA 9309. | |
| Applicant filed a criminal motion. | |
| Case management conference convened. | |
| Applicant filed the present application. | |
| Applicant filed his handwritten submissions. | |
| Prosecution filed its written submissions. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of s 394J(5) of the CPC.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 159
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- Sufficiency of Material for Review
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant's legal arguments were not based on a change in the law and therefore did not constitute sufficient material within the meaning of s 394J(2) of the CPC.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to file a criminal motion on the grounds of miscarriage of justice
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan | State Courts | Yes | [2019] SGDC 282 | Singapore | The High Court affirmed the State Court's decision in this case. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application for leave to make a review application must disclose a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review and must satisfy the stringent requirements in s 394J of the CPC. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for setting out the principles governing an application for review. |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements, leave will not be granted. |
| Karthik Jasudass and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 13 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements, leave will not be granted. |
| Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements, leave will not be granted. |
| Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements, leave will not be granted. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1364 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements, leave will not be granted. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 405 and 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(6)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal review
- Miscarriage of justice
- Urine procurement procedure
- Leave application
- Criminal Procedure Code
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Miscarriage of justice
- Drug offences
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
| Adverse inferences | 40 |
| Appeal | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Offences