Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review, Reopening Concluded Decisions & Thresholds
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard eight criminal motions (CM 22, CM 32, CM 45, CM 46, CM 47, CM 48, CM 49, and CM 50) on 1 August 2024, all seeking review of prior convictions and sentences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The applicants, including Pausi bin Jefridin, Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman, Tan Kay Yong, Ramdhan bin Lajis, Saminathan Selvaraju, Roslan bin Bakar, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, and Masoud Rahimi bin Merzad, argued that the disclosure of their correspondence by the Singapore Prison Service to the Attorney-General's Chambers breached prosecutorial disclosure obligations and tainted their convictions. The Court dismissed all motions, finding that the disclosed correspondence did not affect the propriety of the applicants' criminal proceedings and did not warrant an exercise of the court's power of review.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal Motions dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal judgment on criminal motions for review of convictions, addressing prosecutorial disclosure obligations and the threshold for reopening concluded decisions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Opposed | Won | Christina Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Roslan bin Bakar | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ramdhan bin Lajis | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Kay Yong | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Saminathan Selvaraju | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Pausi bin Jefridin | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Merzad | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christina Koh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicants were prisoners awaiting capital punishment.
- The applicants were convicted and sentenced on various capital charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- The Singapore Prison Service disclosed correspondence belonging to the applicants to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
- The applicants filed civil proceedings alleging that the actions of the SPS and the AG were ultra vires.
- The applicants sought damages for infringement of copyright and breach of confidence.
- The applicants argued that the disclosures breached their fair hearing rights in the criminal process.
- The applicants filed criminal motions seeking relief under the criminal law arising from the disclosures.
5. Formal Citations
- Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2024] SGCA 37
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| OS 188 filed | |
| General Division of the High Court declined to grant the reliefs sought in OS 188 | |
| Permission granted to bring separate criminal motions for relief under the criminal law in CA 30 | |
| Seven Criminal Motions filed | |
| Case management conference convened | |
| Counsel for the applicants discharged | |
| Seven Criminal Motions heard and dismissed | |
| Grounds of Decision delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Prosecutorial Disclosure Obligations
- Outcome: The court found no breach of prosecutorial disclosure obligations that would warrant a review of the convictions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose material witness statements
- Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 1205
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
- Reopening Concluded Decisions
- Outcome: The court determined that the applicants did not meet the threshold for reopening concluded decisions, as the disclosed correspondence did not affect the propriety of their criminal proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Admissibility of new evidence
- Requirements for review applications
- Statutory bars to review applications
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2022] 1 SLR 1451
8. Remedies Sought
- Declarations that actions were ultra vires
- Damages
- Equitable Relief
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Confidence
- Infringement of Copyright
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 698 | Singapore | Cited for the voluntary disclosure by the Attorney-General in HC/OS 975/2020. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited to note that the forwarding of correspondence to the AGC was unauthorised under the Prisons Regulations. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 414 | Singapore | Cited regarding the attenuation of due process rights for individuals who have had a full trial and appeal. |
| Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 45 | Singapore | Cited to note that the Court of Appeal did not regard the handwriting evidence as relevant or material to the issues in the case. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1451 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement that the material the applicant will be relying on in the review proper is “almost certain” to satisfy the requirements under s 394J of the CPC. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the failure to satisfy any of the three requirements in s 394J(3) will result in a dismissal of the review application. |
| Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 927 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an applicant cannot make more than one permission application because that is the necessary prelude to a review application. |
| Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 507 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the principle that an applicant cannot make more than one permission application because that is the necessary prelude to a review application. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 452 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal possesses the inherent power of review. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Prosecution's disclosure obligations. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Prosecution's disclosure obligations. |
| Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Court of Appeal’s decision in Harven. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution was not required to disclose its reasons for making a particular prosecutorial decision. |
| Roslan bin Bakar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1023 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Court of Appeal's observation that the case against Mr Roslan was “the product of an interlocking lattice of testimonies”. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited regarding a change in the law on wilful blindness. |
| Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 622 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the new material that the applicant relies on is presently not available and therefore cannot be placed before the court in a review application, a review application premised on that material would serve no purpose. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ramdhan bin Lajis and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 104 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court in CC 12 had also expressly considered the relevance of the evidence. |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 30 | Singapore | Cited regarding CM 9 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 5 April 2021. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394K of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394K(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394K(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394F(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394F(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(5)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394I of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 27(6) of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 30 of 2012) | Singapore |
| s 33B(1)(b) read with s 33B(3) of the MDA | Singapore |
| Art 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Art 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the MDA | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the MDA | Singapore |
| s 18(1) of the MDA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Review
- Prosecutorial Disclosure
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Ultra Vires
- Capital Punishment
- Disclosed Correspondence
- Review Application
- Permission Application
- Inherent Power of Review
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Review
- Singapore Court of Appeal
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Prosecutorial Disclosure
- Capital Punishment
- Reopening Concluded Decisions
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Review | 85 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 80 |
| Natural justice | 70 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Judicial Review