Hamzah bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application for Drug Trafficking
Hamzah bin Ibrahim applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 14 February 2025 for permission to make a review application against his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking. He was originally convicted in the High Court along with Muhammad Farid bin Sudi and Tika Pesik. Hamzah's appeal against his sentence was dismissed on 20 August 2018. The Court of Appeal, in this judgment delivered by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, dismissed Hamzah's application, finding no basis to conclude that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Hamzah bin Ibrahim seeks review of his drug trafficking conviction. The Court of Appeal dismisses his application, finding no miscarriage of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hamzah bin Ibrahim | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong, Chan Yi Cheng, Maximillian Chew |
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 |
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Maximillian Chew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Mr. Hamzah was charged with possession of 26.29g of diamorphine for trafficking.
- Mr. Hamzah admitted to arranging to purchase drugs and taking delivery of the drugs.
- Mr. Hamzah was given a Certificate of Substantive Assistance but did not qualify for alternative sentencing.
- Mr. Hamzah appealed against his sentence only, not his conviction.
- Mr. Hamzah claimed he was promised a non-capital sentence if he cooperated with investigations.
- Mr. Hamzah filed multiple post-appeal applications, most of which were dismissed.
5. Formal Citations
- Hamzah bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 3 of 2025, [2025] SGCA 6
- Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Sudi and others, , [2017] SGHC 228
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and another, HC/OS 975/2020, [2021] 4 SLR 698
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General, HC/OS 664/2021, [2022] 5 SLR 93
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General, HC/OS 825/2021, [2022] 4 SLR 934
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General, CA/CA 30/2022, [2024] 2 SLR 588
- Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another, CA/CA 31/2022, [2022] 2 SLR 1018
- Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General, HC/OA 987/2023, [2024] 4 SLR 331
- Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General, CA/CA 1/2024, [2024] 1 SLR 414
- Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor, , [2022] 1 SLR 1451
- Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor, , [2023] SGCA 35
- Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2024] 1 SLR 1127
- Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor, , [2021] 2 SLR 860
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor, , [2021] 1 SLR 159
- Lu Lai Heng v Public Prosecutor, , [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1037
- Jumadi bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, , [2022] 1 SLR 814
- Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan, , [2014] 1 SLR 336
- Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another, , [2015] 1 SLR 834
- Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2017] 1 SLR 173
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Drug transaction occurred | |
| Trial in the High Court | |
| Mr. Hamzah was convicted and sentenced to death | |
| Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal | |
| Petition of Clemency filed to the President | |
| Petition rejected | |
| HC/OS 975/2020 filed | |
| HC/OS 975/2020 dismissed | |
| HC/OS 664/2021 filed | |
| HC/OS 825/2021 filed | |
| HC/OS 1025/2021 filed | |
| Permission for HC/OS 664/2021 to be withdrawn granted | |
| HC/OS 1025/2021 struck out | |
| HC/OS 825/2021 dismissed | |
| HC/OS 188/2022 filed | |
| HC/OS 188/2022 dismissed in part | |
| CA/CA 30/2022 filed | |
| HC/OC 166/2022 filed | |
| HC/OC 166/2022 struck out | |
| CA/CA 31/2022 filed | |
| CA/CA 31/2022 dismissed | |
| HC/OA 987/2023 filed | |
| HC/OA 987/2023 struck out | |
| CA/CA 1/2024 dismissed | |
| CA/CA 30/2022 allowed in part | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Outcome: The court found no basis to conclude that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2022] 1 SLR 1451
- [2023] SGCA 35
- [2024] 1 SLR 1127
- [2021] 2 SLR 860
- [2021] 1 SLR 159
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that self-perceived inducements cannot amount to an inducement or promise within the meaning of s 258(3) of the CPC.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1037
- [2022] 1 SLR 814
- Presumption of Innocence
- Outcome: The court rejected the submission that s 33B(2) of the MDA is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 1 SLR 336
- [2015] 1 SLR 834
- [2017] 1 SLR 173
8. Remedies Sought
- Retrial
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Sudi and others | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 228 | Singapore | Cited for the facts of the trial, including the testimonies of Mr. Hamzah, Mr. Farid, and Mdm. Pesik, and the Judge's findings regarding Mr. Hamzah's possession and intent to sell the drugs. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 698 | Singapore | Cited to show that OS 975 was dismissed by the High Court. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 93 | Singapore | Cited to show that permission for OS 664 to be withdrawn was granted. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 934 | Singapore | Cited to show that OS 825 was dismissed by the High Court. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 2 SLR 588 | Singapore | Cited to show that CA 30 was allowed in part. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited to show that CA 31 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2024] 4 SLR 331 | Singapore | Cited to show that OA 987 was struck out. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 414 | Singapore | Cited to show that the appeal against the decision in OA 987 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 applicant must show 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 principle that the material the applicant will be relying on in the review must be “almost certain” to satisfy the requirements under s 394J of the CPC. |
| Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 35 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the material the applicant will be relying on in the review must be “almost certain” to satisfy the requirements under s 394J of the CPC. |
| Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 1127 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the material the applicant will be relying on in the review must be “almost certain” to satisfy the requirements under s 394J of the CPC. |
| Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the elements of “sufficiency” and “miscarriage of justice” are a composite requirement. |
| 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 will result in a dismissal of the review application. |
| Lu Lai Heng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1037 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that self-perceived inducements cannot amount to an inducement or promise within the meaning of s 258(3) of the CPC. |
| Jumadi bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that notifying Mr Hamzah of the requirements that would satisfy the alternative sentencing regime in s 33B(2) of the MDA would not amount to a threat, inducement of promise. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 336 | Singapore | Cited for remarks that an accused person would be “in a bind” if evidence relevant to whether he or she was a courier had to be adduced at the trial, which was rejected by the Court of Appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited for the minority decision that an accused person whose primary defence was inherently inconsistent with the statutory relief of being a courier would be placed in an invidious position if he was made to raise this at the trial since it would undermine his primary defence, which was rejected by the majority decision of the Court of Appeal. |
| Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that “there is nothing invidious about an offender having to elect between whether to co-operate and whether to give evidence in his defence”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court |
| r 11(2)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(6)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(6A) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394G of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(a)–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 394K of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Arts 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Arts 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| s 2(b) of the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 | Singapore |
| ss 60G(7)(d) and 60G(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug trafficking
- Certificate of Substantive Assistance
- Alternative sentencing regime
- Miscarriage of justice
- Review application
- Presumption of innocence
- Courier
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Drug trafficking
- Miscarriage of justice
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Misuse of Drugs Act
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
- Judicial Review
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Criminal Review
- Drug Trafficking