Mohammad Farid v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Decision and Abuse of Process
Mohammad Farid bin Batra applied for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Attorney-General in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore. The application concerned a decision by the Public Prosecutor regarding a methamphetamine charge. Aedit Abdullah J dismissed the application, finding it to be an abuse of process and that the applicant lacked sufficient interest in the matter. The court also addressed issues of whether Ranjit faced a non-capital methamphetamine charge and whether there was an arguable case for the remedies sought.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Leave to commence judicial review proceedings refused.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review application by Mohammad Farid against the Attorney-General dismissed due to insufficient interest and abuse of process, related to a drug trafficking charge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jason Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohammad Farid bin Batra | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jason Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicant was convicted of possessing drugs for trafficking.
- Applicant was initially sentenced to death, later reduced to life imprisonment and caning.
- Applicant sought review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, which was refused.
- Applicant filed an application for Hafiz to be brought to court, which was dismissed as an abuse of process.
- Applicant complained about the Public Prosecutor’s decision concerning a methamphetamine charge.
- A methamphetamine charge against the Applicant was withdrawn under s 147(1) CPC.
- Applicant argued Ranjit should have faced the methamphetamine charge as well.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Attorney-General, Originating Application No 159 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 132
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code enacted | |
| Applicant sought review under s 394H CPC of the Court of Appeal’s decision | |
| Applicant filed an application for one Hafiz to be brought to court under the Prisons Act | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed application as abuse of process | |
| Application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings heard and refused | |
| Deadline for filing notice of appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the application was an abuse of process aimed at delaying the caning.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Delaying execution of sentence
- Filing meritless applications
- Sufficient Interest
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant lacked sufficient interest in the matter, as the withdrawal of the charge against him meant that he was not exposed to different treatment.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Proximate effect of decision
- General interest vs. direct harm
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 1
- Differential Treatment by Public Prosecutor
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of bias or improper consideration by the Public Prosecutor in the differential treatment of the applicant and Ranjit.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Like cases treated alike
- Unbiased consideration
- Irrelevant considerations
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 2 SLR 49
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to commence judicial review proceedings
- Quashing of the Public Prosecutor's decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Public Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the test regarding the grant of leave for judicial review, specifically concerning sufficient interest and compelling issues of public interest. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Article 12(1) requires the Prosecution to treat like cases alike, giving unbiased consideration and disregarding irrelevant considerations. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H CPC | Singapore |
| s 147(1) CPC | Singapore |
| s 147(2) CPC | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Abuse of process
- Sufficient interest
- Public Prosecutor
- Methamphetamine charge
- Certificate of substantive assistance
- Caning
- Trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Withdrawal of charge
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Abuse of Process
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Abuse of Process | 90 |
| Judicial Review | 85 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure