Tika Pesik v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review for Drug Trafficking Conviction
Tika Pesik applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore for permission to review her conviction and sentence for trafficking diamorphine, after her initial appeal was dismissed in 2018. Pesik claimed new evidence would prove her innocence, including CCTV footage and immigration records. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, dismissed the application, finding no legitimate basis to suggest a miscarriage of justice, as the alleged new evidence was not compelling and could have been presented earlier.
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
Tika Pesik seeks criminal review of her drug trafficking conviction, alleging new evidence. The Court of Appeal dismisses the application, finding no miscarriage of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hamzah bin Ibrahim | Other | Individual | |||
| Tika Pesik | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Farid bin Sudi | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted of trafficking 26.29g of diamorphine with common intention.
- The applicant arranged for Farid to collect and deliver the drugs to Hamzah.
- Farid and Hamzah testified against the applicant.
- The applicant claimed she was framed by Saravanan.
- The trial Judge found the applicant's denial to be unbelievable.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence.
- The applicant filed for permission to review the Court of Appeal's decision based on new evidence.
5. Formal Citations
- Tika Pesik v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 37 of 2023, [2023] SGCA 44
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arrangements made for Farid to collect controlled drug and deliver it to Hamzah. | |
| Farid delivered two packets containing diamorphine to Hamzah. | |
| Applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence in CA/CCA 29/2017. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against her conviction and sentence in CA/CCA 29/2017. | |
| Applicant filed CA/CM 37/2023 for permission to review the decision of the Court of Appeal. | |
| Prosecution filed its submissions. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed CM 37 summarily. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Review
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant did not provide sufficient material to suggest a miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Admissibility of new evidence
- Miscarriage of justice
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal Review
- Overturning Conviction
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the decision of an appellate court must show a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power to review. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(a) to (c) of the CPC | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Common Intention
- Criminal Review
- Miscarriage of Justice
- New Evidence
- CCTV Footage
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Review
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Diamorphine
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Criminal Revision | 95 |
| Drug Trafficking | 90 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Criminal Review | 80 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Appeals
- Criminal Procedure