Mohd Noor bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application Dismissed
Mohd Noor bin Ismail applied for permission to review the Court of Appeal's decision in Abdoll Mutaleb bin Raffik v Public Prosecutor, which had dismissed his appeal against his conviction for importing diamorphine. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, summarily dismissed the application, finding that Noor failed to meet the requirements for a review application under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code, as he presented no new evidence and made unsubstantiated allegations.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal Motion dismissed summarily.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for criminal review is dismissed. The Court of Appeal found no new evidence or miscarriage of justice in the applicant's conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Kenny Yang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohd Noor bin Ismail | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kenny Yang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lau Wing Yum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Noor applied for permission to review the Court of Appeal’s decision in Abdoll Mutaleb bin Raffik v Public Prosecutor.
- Noor was convicted of importing not less than 212.57 grams of diamorphine and sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.
- Noor claimed the Court of Appeal stated he “was not involved in this case”.
- Noor repeated his allegation that Investigation Officer Prashant Sukumaran lied in court.
- Noor alleged his lead counsel did not make submissions about the IO during the hearing before the Court of Appeal.
- The High Court found that Noor’s allegations were not made out and held that there was no basis to revisit the conclusion reached that Noor be convicted on the charge against him.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohd Noor bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 31 of 2023, [2023] SGCA 33
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judgment issued | |
| Noor’s affidavit dated | |
| DPP Lau’s affidavit dated | |
| Mr Thrumurgan’s written statement dated | |
| Prosecution’s written submissions dated | |
| Noor convicted by the High Court | |
| First hearing of Noor’s appeal | |
| Remittal hearing began | |
| Remittal hearing concluded | |
| Noor’s appeal heard again by the Court of Appeal | |
| Court of Appeal released its decision dismissing Noor’s appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Permission for Criminal Review
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for a review application under s 394H of the CPC and dismissed the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGCA 12
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission to review the Court of Appeal’s decision
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdoll Mutaleb bin Raffik v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 12 | Singapore | Cited as the Court of Appeal decision that the applicant sought to review. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | N/A | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that an applicant must disclose a legitimate basis for the exercise of the appellate court’s power of review. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini bin Zainutdin and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 162 | Singapore | Cited for the procedural history of the case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini bin Zainutdin and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 76 | Singapore | Cited for the procedural history of the case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Noor bin Ismail | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 66 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's findings after the remittal hearing. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal review
- Permission for review
- Miscarriage of justice
- New evidence
- Unsubstantiated allegations
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
| Evidence | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure