Moad Fadzir v PP: Application for Judge Recusal Based on Apprehension of Bias

Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore for Justice Tay Yong Kwang to disqualify himself from hearing a summary determination stage in CA/CM 15/2024, citing a reasonable apprehension of bias. The application was based on Justice Tay's prior adverse rulings against the applicant in the First CA Judgment and the Second CA Judgment. The Court of Appeal, comprising Tay Yong Kwang JCA, Steven Chong JCA, and Woo Bih Li JAD, dismissed the application, finding no reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for Justice Tay Yong Kwang's recusal from hearing a review application due to alleged bias. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication DismissedWon
Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sarah Siaw of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Moad Fadzir bin MustaffaApplicantIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Ong Ying Ping of Ong Ying Ping Esq

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wong Woon KwongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sarah SiawAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ong Ying PingOng Ying Ping Esq

4. Facts

  1. Applicant sought Justice Tay Yong Kwang's recusal from hearing CM 15.
  2. Applicant cited Justice Tay's prior adverse rulings in First CA Judgment and Second CA Judgment.
  3. Applicant argued Justice Tay had formed a negative impression of him.
  4. Applicant raised concerns about Justice Tay's dissenting view in Harven Segar regarding evidential burden.
  5. The Court of Appeal found no reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias.
  6. The First CA Judgment was a unanimous decision of three judges.
  7. The hearing of an application for permission to review by one member of the original Court is contemplated by the CPC.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 20 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 18

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicant drove a car to Block 157 Toa Payoh
Trial judge found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer death
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and affirmed the applicant’s conviction and mandatory death sentence
Applicant filed CA/CM 29/2020 for permission to make an application under s 394H of the CPC
Applicant's scheduled date of execution
Tay JCA dismissed CM 29 summarily
President issued order that the death sentence on the applicant be carried into effect on 26 April 2024
Applicant applied in CM 15 for permission to make a review application
Prosecution sought an extension of time and requested a stay of execution
Court of Appeal granted request and stayed the execution of the death sentence
Supreme Court Registry replied to the parties that Tay Yong Kwang has found that there are no grounds which warrant his recusal from hearing CM 15
Mr Ong indicated that he was instructed by the applicant to file a further “formal application” for Tay JCA’s recusal
CM 20 brought
Prosecution confirmed that it would not be filing a reply affidavit in CM 20
Both parties filed their submissions
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Apparent Bias
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable suspicion of bias
      • Fair trial
      • Judicial impartiality
    • Related Cases:
      • [2022] 2 SLR 507

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disqualification of Judge

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for Recusal

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appellate Practice

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2019] SGCA 73SingaporeCited as the First CA Judgment, the decision the applicant sought to review.
Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 1364SingaporeCited as the Second CA Judgment, where Tay JCA dismissed the applicant's first application for permission to make a review application.
Harven a/l Segar v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 771SingaporeCited for Tay JCA's dissenting view on the evidential burden to produce a witness.
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Gouri Mukherjee and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] 2 SLR 1347SingaporeCited for the principle that multiple adverse rulings against a litigant do not amount to apparent bias unless accompanied by intemperate language or clear errors.
Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2022] 2 SLR 507SingaporeCited for the test for apparent bias and the vital public interest in ensuring justice is seen to be done.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code 2010Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Apparent bias
  • Recusal
  • Reasonable apprehension of bias
  • Judicial impartiality
  • Evidential burden
  • Criminal review

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal
  • Bias
  • Recusal
  • Judge
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Review85
Misuse of Drugs Act80
Criminal Procedure75
Criminal Law70
Sentencing60
Natural justice50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Judicial Review
  • Criminal Procedure