Chander Kumar v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application under Misuse of Drugs Act
Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran applied to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore on October 6, 2023, for permission to review an earlier decision regarding his conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court, presided over by Justice Tay Yong Kwang, dismissed the application, finding no legitimate basis for review and citing abuse of process due to repeat applications. The court upheld the original conviction and sentence for drug trafficking.
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
The Court of Appeal dismissed Chander Kumar's application for criminal review, finding no miscarriage of justice in his drug trafficking conviction. The court cited abuse of process due to repeat applications.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Opposed | Won | |
| Chander Kumar A/L Jayagaran | 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 |
|---|
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted of drug trafficking.
- The applicant sought to review the Court of Appeal's decision dismissing his appeal.
- The applicant had previously filed an application for permission to review the same decision, which was dismissed.
- The applicant alleged prosecutorial misconduct and excessive judicial interference.
- The applicant claimed the Prosecution failed to disclose statements from his sister and father.
- The Court of Appeal found no miscarriage of justice and dismissed the application.
- The court found the application to be an abuse of process due to repeat applications.
5. Formal Citations
- Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 40 of 2023, [2023] SGCA 35
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Court of Appeal delivered judgment in Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor | |
| Applicant filed CA/CM 37 | |
| CA/CM 37 dismissed summarily | |
| Applicant filed CM 40 | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Outcome: The court found no miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose material witness statements
- Prosecutorial misconduct
- Excessive judicial interference
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 1003
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found the application to be an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Repeat applications for review
- Rehashed arguments
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Conviction
- Review of Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Review
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited as the earlier decision the applicant sought to review. |
| Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Cited as the decision dismissing the applicant's first application for permission to review Ramesh (CA). |
| Regina v Lucas (Ruth) | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1981] QB 720 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to the applicant's claim that Ramesh told 'Lucas lies'. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution's duty to disclose a material witness’ statement to the Defence. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the application 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 requirements set out in s 394J of the CPC. |
| Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 622 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that a change in the law is not a licence to review concluded appeals. |
| Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 927 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that filing more than one application for permission to make a review application is not permissible in law based on s 394K(1) of the CPC. |
| Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 13 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requirements under the statutory route of review mirror the requirements for the exercise of the court’s inherent power. |
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 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(5)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394K(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 17(2) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Art 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Review
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Abuse of Process
- Drug Trafficking
- Prosecutorial Misconduct
- Judicial Interference
- Material Witness
- Disclosure Obligations
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Review
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Abuse of Process
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Review