Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application
In Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa's application for review of an earlier decision. The court found the application to be statutorily prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Code and an abuse of process. The court ordered the applicant's counsel, Ong Ying Ping, to pay costs of $5,000 personally to the Prosecution.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed summarily.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa's application for review, finding it statutorily prohibited and an abuse of process. The court ordered costs against the applicant's counsel.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs awarded | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Siaw of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa | Applicant | Individual | Application 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 is awaiting capital punishment.
- The applicant filed CA/CM 29/2024 seeking a review of the CM 15 Judgment.
- The CM 15 Judgment dismissed the applicant's application for permission to make a review application.
- The applicant argued that the finding that he was the intended buyer, recipient and owner of the drugs was a miscarriage of justice.
- The Prosecution argued that the present CM 29 is an abuse of process.
- The court found that CM 29 was statutorily prohibited under Division 1B of Part 20 of the CPC.
- The court ordered Mr. Ong to pay costs of $5,000 personally to the Prosecution.
5. Formal Citations
- Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 29 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 24
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant filed CA/CM 15/2024 for permission to make a review application. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered the first CA Judgment. | |
| CM 15 dismissed summarily. | |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) enacted. | |
| Applicant filed CA/CM 29/2020 to seek permission to make an application under s 394H of the CPC. | |
| Original scheduled date of applicant's execution. | |
| President ordered a respite of the execution pending further order. | |
| CM 29/2020 dismissed summarily. | |
| President issued order that the death sentence be carried into effect on April 26, 2024. | |
| Prosecution sought an extension of time to review issues raised in CM 15. | |
| Court of Appeal granted request for stay of execution. | |
| Applicant filed CA/CM 20/2024 seeking recusal. | |
| CM 20 dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Case management conference held. | |
| Judgment delivered. | |
| Incident involving the applicant and Zuraimy bin Musa. |
7. Legal Issues
- Review of Court of Appeal Decision
- Outcome: The court held that the application was statutorily prohibited and an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Statutory Prohibitions on Review Applications
- Abuse of Process
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 2 SLR 180
- [2022] 1 SLR 452
- Costs against Solicitor
- Outcome: The court ordered costs of $5,000 to be paid personally by the applicant's counsel to the Prosecution.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Improper Conduct
- Unreasonable Conduct
- Unnecessary Costs
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 1394
- [2021] 2 SLR 377
- [2022] 2 SLR 998
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Court of Appeal Decision
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
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 | Cited as the first Court of Appeal judgment which the applicant sought to review. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Cited as the CM 15 Judgment which the applicant sought to review. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 97 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment where CM 29/2020 was dismissed summarily. |
| Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment where CM 20 was dismissed. |
| Beh Chew Boo v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant to argue that a standalone review application may be made under s 60D(c) of the SCJA. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant regarding the Prosecution's duty to produce material witnesses. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters | N/A | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 452 | Singapore | Cited by Mr. Ong regarding the court's inherent power to reopen a concluded criminal appeal. |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1394 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's power to order a solicitor to pay costs. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test in relation to the exercise of the court’s power to order costs against a solicitor. |
| Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test in relation to the exercise of the court’s power to order costs against a solicitor. |
| Kim Gwang Seok v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 821 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'original criminal jurisdiction'. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Review
- Abuse of Process
- Statutory Prohibition
- Costs against Solicitor
- Miscarriage of Justice
15.2 Keywords
- criminal review
- court of appeal
- singapore
- criminal procedure code
- supreme court of judicature act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Review | 98 |
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Capital Punishment | 85 |
| Costs | 70 |
| Abuse of Process | 65 |
| Duty of Candour | 60 |
| Legal Profession Act | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure