Muhammad Faizal v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application under s 394H CPC & Misuse of Drugs Act
Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to review his conviction for possessing drugs (cannabis) for the purpose of trafficking, for which he received the mandatory death penalty. The applicant argued that a change in the law on disclosure and additional evidence warranted a review. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, dismissed the application, finding no new evidence or change in law that would warrant a review of the original decision.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Muhammad Faizal's application for criminal review, finding no miscarriage of justice in his drug trafficking conviction. The court held that there was no new evidence or change in law that would warrant a review.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Stephanie Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Ong Ying Ping of Ong Ying Ping Esq |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Stephanie Koh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ong Ying Ping | Ong Ying Ping Esq |
4. Facts
- Applicant was convicted of possessing cannabis for trafficking and sentenced to death.
- Applicant claimed the Prosecution failed to disclose statements and forensic phone records.
- Applicant argued a change in law on disclosure warranted a review.
- Drugs were found in an apartment rented by Serena, who said she was staying there with the applicant.
- Applicant admitted to collecting four blocks of cannabis but claimed some blocks found were not his.
- Applicant's fingerprints and DNA were not found on some of the blocks of cannabis.
- Applicant claimed the cannabis was jointly owned by him, Serena, Arab and Leo.
5. Formal Citations
- Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 23 of 2023, [2023] SGCA 15
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant and Serena arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau | |
| Ong Bee Leng went to the apartment and gathered the belongings of the temporary occupants | |
| Ong Bee Leng found six blocks of substance wrapped in cling wrap in the drawer of the television console | |
| Applicant convicted by Chan Seng Onn J in the High Court | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed CM 13 as well as CCA 3 | |
| Proceedings in HC/OS 975/2020 | |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 984 was decided | |
| Proceedings in HC/OS 825/2021 and HC/OS 1025/2021 | |
| Appeal against the High Court’s decisions in HC/OC 166/2022 was dismissed | |
| Applicant’s family was informed by the Singapore Prison Service that the death sentence passed on the applicant would be carried out on 17 May 2023 | |
| Applicant filed the present application | |
| Prosecution filed its written submissions in response | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Permission for Criminal Review
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for permission to make a review application, finding no new evidence or change in law that would warrant a review.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
- [2021] 2 SLR 860
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2021] SGCA 10
- [2023] SGCA 8
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant failed to raise sufficient material to conclude that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Disclosure of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution had fulfilled its obligations on disclosure.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
- [2011] 3 SLR 1205
8. Remedies Sought
- Reduced sentence of life imprisonment
- Reduced charge to a non-capital offence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Review
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 17 | Singapore | Details the trial judge's findings that the applicant had actual possession and knowledge of the nature of all six blocks of cannabis and possessed all six blocks of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant as a change in the law on disclosure, arguing that additional evidence should have been disclosed by the Prosecution pursuant to the principles enunciated in Nabill. |
| Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application under s 394H of the CPC must disclose a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is insufficient for an applicant to attempt to re-characterise the evidence already led below or to mount fresh factual arguments on the basis of such evidence. |
| Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an application merely rehashes the submissions made at the trial and on appeal, permission to file a review application will not be granted. |
| Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 8 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that while Nabill represented a change in the law, this did not mean by itself that such a change constituted “sufficient material”. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution’s obligations on disclosure. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| ss 394J(2) and (3) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal review
- Miscarriage of justice
- Disclosure
- Trafficking
- Cannabis
- Sufficient material
- Change in law
- New evidence
- Joint ownership
- Forensic phone records
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Drug trafficking
- Miscarriage of justice
- Singapore
- Cannabis
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking