Muhammad Hisham v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review of Drug Trafficking Conviction
Muhammad Hisham bin Hamzah applied for criminal review of his drug trafficking conviction, which was previously affirmed on appeal. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed the application, finding that the issues raised had already been canvassed and rejected in prior proceedings and did not meet the requirements for review under the Criminal Procedure Code.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed summarily.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Criminal review application for drug trafficking conviction dismissed. The court found no miscarriage of justice, as issues were previously litigated and rejected.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Niranjan Ranjakunalan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gail Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhammad Hisham bin Hamzah | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed summarily | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Niranjan Ranjakunalan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gail Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Hisham was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking.
- CNB officers arrested Hisham and Nurul in a hotel room.
- Diamorphine exhibits were recovered from the hotel room.
- Hisham claimed he possessed the drugs for personal consumption.
- Hisham appealed his conviction, arguing a break in the chain of custody.
- The High Court dismissed Hisham's appeal.
- Hisham filed a criminal motion seeking review of the High Court's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Muhammad Hisham bin Hamzah v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 31 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 171
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hisham and Nurul arrested for drug-related offences. | |
| Hisham convicted by District Judge. | |
| Hisham's appeal dismissed. | |
| Hisham filed criminal motion. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Review
- Outcome: The court held that the application did not meet the requirements for criminal review under the CPC.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirements for review application
- Admissibility of new evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2021] SGCA 118
- Chain of Custody
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's arguments regarding the chain of custody were previously considered and rejected.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction
- Reversal of sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Review
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | 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. |
| Murugesan a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 118 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that leave will not be granted if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 452 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that finality of legal proceedings has profound implications for access to justice. |
| Suresh s/o Krishnan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 28 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that latitude for litigants-in-person does not extend to rehashing arguments rejected on appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Hisham bin Hamzah | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 268 | Singapore | Cited for the District Judge's grounds of decision in convicting Hisham. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33(4A)(i) of the MDA | Singapore |
| ss 394H and 394I of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(a) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(b) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(c) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the CPC | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal review
- Diamorphine
- Chain of custody
- Miscarriage of justice
- Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Leave to appeal
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Drug trafficking
- Singapore
- High Court
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Criminal Procedure