Ahmad Danial v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against DNATA for Murder Charge
Ahmad Danial bin Mohamed Rafa’ee appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against the decision of the district judge to grant a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNATA) on a murder charge. The Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon dismissed the appeal, holding that the district judge properly exercised his discretion in granting the DNATA, considering the public interest in pursuing the case and the ongoing efforts to locate a material witness, Mr. Ragil Putra Setia Sukmarahjana. The court also addressed the issue of whether it had the power to grant a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DATA) on the charge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ahmad Danial appeals against a DNATA for a murder charge. The court dismisses the appeal, finding the DJ properly exercised discretion.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Upheld | Won | Lim Shin Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers R Arvindren of Attorney-General’s Chambers Yang Ziliang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ahmad Danial Bin Mohamed Rafa’ee | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Shin Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| R Arvindren | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Yang Ziliang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nathan Shashidran | Withers KhattarWong LLP |
| Laura Yeo Wei Wen | Withers KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- The appellant was charged with murder under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code.
- The charge arose out of events that took place in 2007, when Ms Felicia Teo Wei Ling went missing.
- The appellant and Mr Ragil were the last two people to see Ms Teo alive.
- In 2020, a review of the case uncovered evidence that the appellant might have provided an inaccurate account of events.
- The appellant revealed that he had deposited Ms Teo’s corpse, misappropriated her property, and given false statements to the police.
- The Prosecution applied for a DNATA because Mr Ragil was still at large in Indonesia.
- The appellant pleaded guilty to four new charges arising from his conduct after Ms Teo’s death.
5. Formal Citations
- Ahmad Danial bin Mohamed Rafa’ee v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9133 of 2022/01, [2023] SGHC 94
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ms. Felicia Teo Wei Ling went missing | |
| Appellant and Mr. Ragil Putra Setia Sukmarahjana interviewed by authorities | |
| Appellant arrested | |
| Appellant charged with murder | |
| Prosecution applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal | |
| Prosecution tendered six new charges | |
| Appellant pleaded guilty to four charges | |
| Appellant sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment, backdated to date of arrest | |
| Hearing date | |
| Decision date |
7. Legal Issues
- Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal (DNATA)
- Outcome: The court held that the district judge properly exercised his discretion in granting a DNATA, considering the public interest in pursuing the case and the ongoing efforts to locate a material witness.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Propriety of granting a DNATA versus a Discharge Amounting to an Acquittal (DATA)
- Balancing public interest and the rights of the accused
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 1 SLR(R) 347
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 314
- [1985–1986] SLR(R) 1
- [1990] 1 SLR(R) 660
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 639
- Jurisdiction of the Court
- Outcome: The court did not make a definitive ruling on whether it had the power to grant a DATA on the Charge, but made some observations on the point.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Power of District Court to grant DATA for offences triable in the High Court
- Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court on appeal
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 890
8. Remedies Sought
- Discharge Amounting to an Acquittal (DATA)
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loh Siang Piow and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 347 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has no discretion as to whether or not a discharge should be granted when the Public Prosecutor informs the court that he will not further prosecute an accused person. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Guan Hup | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 314 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has no discretion as to whether or not a discharge should be granted when the Public Prosecutor informs the court that he will not further prosecute an accused person. |
| K Abdul Rasheed and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1985–1986] SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in exercising the discretion to decide whether a discharge should amount to an acquittal, the court must balance the public interest and the rights of the accused person. |
| Goh Cheng Chuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 660 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in exercising the discretion to decide whether a discharge should amount to an acquittal, the court must balance the public interest and the rights of the accused person. |
| TS Video and Laser Pte Ltd v Lim Chee Yong and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 639 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in exercising the discretion to decide whether a discharge should amount to an acquittal, the court must balance the public interest and the rights of the accused person. |
| Arjan Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 542 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person who has been acquitted of a charge may not be tried again for the same offence or on the same facts for any other offence. |
| Vigny Alfred Raj a/l Vicetor Amratha Raja v Public Prosecutor | Malaysian Federal Court | Yes | [2022] 5 MLJ 639 | Malaysia | Cited for the criticism of the prosecutorial approach of “charge now, investigate later”. |
| Yen Ching Yan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 890 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the District Court had no power to acquit an accused person of an offence that was exclusively triable in the High Court. |
| Ee Yee Hua v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1968–1970] SLR(R) 472 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a magistrate had no power to acquit the accused person in a case triable only by a district judge, and was only entitled to discharge him without ordering an acquittal. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the “inherent jurisdiction” of the court. |
| Public Prosecutor v Soh Chee Wen and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 641 | Singapore | Cited for the consideration of whether the court had the inherent power to stay criminal proceedings for abuse of process. |
| Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions | House of Lords | Yes | [1964] 2 WLR 1145 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a court has powers which are necessary to enable it to act effectively within its jurisdiction. |
| Lim Chit Foo v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 64 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the practice of standing down charges should not be seen as falling purely within the Prosecution’s discretion. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ahmad Danial Bin Mohamed Rafa’ee | District Court | Yes | [2022] SGDC 176 | Singapore | The decision below being appealed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 302 read with s 34 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 232(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 232(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 232(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 232(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 232(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 184(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 184(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 239 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal
- Discharge Amounting to an Acquittal
- Material Witness
- Common Intention
- Preliminary Inquiry
- Inherent Jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- High Court
- Murder
- Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal
- DNATA
- Criminal Procedure Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Evidence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure