Mohd Akebal v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application for Drug Trafficking Conviction
Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 3 March 2023 for permission to review his conviction for drug trafficking, which was previously dismissed on 28 November 2019. The court, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, found that the applicant did not present sufficient material to justify a review, as the arguments raised had already been addressed during the trial and appeal. The court dismissed the application summarily.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal 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 concerning Mohd Akebal's drug trafficking conviction. The court dismissed the application, finding no new evidence or change in law.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mark Jayaratnam of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani | 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 |
|---|---|
| Chong Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mark Jayaratnam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicant was convicted of trafficking not less than 29.06g of diamorphine.
- Applicant's appeal against his conviction was dismissed.
- Applicant claimed he was wrongly identified as the individual involved in the drug transaction.
- The trial judge rejected the applicant’s defence.
- The applicant argued that the trial judge erred in fact and law in finding that the identification evidence before him was of good quality.
- The applicant raised a new allegation – that the applicant could have been the subject of a conspiracy to frame him.
- The applicant suggests that the identification evidence in this case was not sufficient to prove that he was the Indian male that was involved in the drug transaction.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 11 of 2023, [2023] SGCA 11
- Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2020] 1 SLR 266
- Public Prosecutor v Andi Ashwar bin Salihin and others, , [2019] SGHC 44
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rusli instructed Andi to collect diamorphine. | |
| Andi made arrangements to pick up diamorphine. | |
| Andi drove to Block 716 Woodlands Avenue 7. | |
| Drug transaction occurred near Block 716. | |
| Applicant was arrested. | |
| Applicant was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. | |
| Appeal against conviction was dismissed. | |
| Application for permission to make a review application was filed. | |
| Application dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sufficiency of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant did not raise sufficient material to show a miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Criminal Review
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for permission to make a review application.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2022] 1 SLR 1451
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal Review
- To be set free
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 266 | Singapore | Cited as the Appeal Judgment which the applicant sought to review. |
| Public Prosecutor v Andi Ashwar bin Salihin and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 44 | Singapore | Cited as the Trial Judgment where the applicant was convicted. |
| 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 permission to review must disclose a legitimate basis for the exercise of the appellate court’s power of review. |
| Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1451 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requirements for the appellate court’s exercise of its power of review are those contained in s 394J of the CPC. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 166 of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33(1) or s 33B of the MDA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Review
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Identification Evidence
- Conspiracy
- Sufficient Material
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Review
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Miscarriage of Justice
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure