Moad Fadzir v PP: Review Application for Drug Trafficking Conviction and Mandatory Death Sentence
Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 19 April 2024 for permission to review his 2019 conviction and mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking. The application was based on new evidence from a witness, Kishor, who claimed to be involved in the drug transaction. Tay Yong Kwang JCA dismissed the application summarily on 21 May 2024, citing a procedural bar against repeat review applications and the lack of sufficient evidence to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application for permission to review dismissed summarily.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for permission to review a drug trafficking conviction and mandatory death sentence. Permission denied due to procedural bar and insufficient evidence of miscarriage of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Siaw of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa | Applicant | Individual | Application for permission to review dismissed summarily | Lost | Ong Ying Ping of Ong Ying Ping Esq |
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 |
| Sarah Siaw | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ong Ying Ping | Ong Ying Ping Esq |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
- The applicant filed an earlier application for permission to review the conviction, which was dismissed.
- The applicant filed a second application for permission to review based on new evidence from a witness named Kishor.
- Kishor claimed to be the person who delivered the drugs to the applicant and Zuraimy.
- The Prosecution argued that the second application was barred by law and that Kishor's evidence was insufficient to warrant a review.
- The Court of Appeal found that a second application for review was prohibited by the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The Court of Appeal also found that Kishor's evidence did not amount to sufficient material to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
5. Formal Citations
- Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 15 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 20
- Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, , [2019] SGCA 73
- Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor, , [2020] SGCA 97
- Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor, , [2024] SGCA 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant arrested for drug trafficking. | |
| First Court of Appeal Judgment delivered, affirming conviction and sentence. | |
| Applicant filed first application for permission to review (CM 29). | |
| First application for permission to review (CM 29) dismissed summarily. | |
| President ordered death sentence to be carried out on 26 April 2024. | |
| Applicant filed second application for permission to review (CM 15). | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed CM 20. | |
| Second application for permission to review (CM 15) dismissed summarily. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the applicant should be granted permission to make a review application to the Court of Appeal.
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant was statutorily barred from making a second review application and that the new material presented was insufficient to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. The application for permission to review was dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the applicant is statutorily barred from making a second review application.
- Whether the new material presented by the applicant is sufficient to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether the Prosecution breached its disclosure obligations.
- Related Cases:
- [2019] SGCA 73
- [2020] SGCA 97
- [2024] SGCA 18
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2021] 1 SLR 159
- [2021] 5 SLR 927
- [2023] SGCA 35
- [2016] 3 SLR 135
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Review
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 73 | Singapore | The judgment under review. The current application seeks to review this earlier decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the applicant's conviction and mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 97 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment where the applicant's first application for permission to make a review application was dismissed summarily. |
| Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment where the applicant's application for the judge to disqualify himself from hearing the application was dismissed. |
| 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 bring a review application must disclose a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the conditions for a review application are cumulative, and failure to satisfy any of them will result in the dismissal of the application. |
| Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 927 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an applicant cannot make more than one application for permission to review. |
| Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 35 | Singapore | Cited as an example of when the court's inherent power to review may be invoked, such as when credible evidence surfaces that the alleged murder victim is actually alive. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's inherent power to review seeks to strike a balance between the prevention of error and the principle of finality. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Prosecution's disclosure obligations. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394I of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394K(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal review
- Drug trafficking
- Mandatory death penalty
- Permission to review
- Miscarriage of justice
- Material witness
- Disclosure obligations
- Second application
- Statutory bar
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Drug trafficking
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Death penalty
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Evidence Law | 65 |
| Duty of Candour | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking