MOHD AKEBAL S/O GHULAM JILANI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Outcome
Application dismissed“I therefore dismiss this application summarily pursuant to s 394H(7) of the CPC.”
Source: [2023] SGCA 11, Court of Appeal, decided 23 March 2023. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tay Yong Kwang |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Application dismissed |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Chin Jincheng, Chong Yong, Mark Jayaratnam |
Source: [2023] SGCA 11, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 11 was heard in the Court of Appeal by Tay Yong Kwang JCA on 23 March 2023, in Criminal Motion No 11 of 2023. The applicant brought an application under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 for permission to make a review application in respect of the court's earlier judgment in Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2020] 1 SLR 266. The applicant had been convicted of trafficking not less than 29.06g of diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty on 27 February 2019, with his conviction appeal dismissed on 28 November 2019; the motion sought permission to review on the basis that he was wrongly identified.
Summary
Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani, who had been convicted of trafficking not less than 29.06g of diamorphine and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty, applied to the Court of Appeal under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to make a review application in respect of an earlier judgment dismissing his appeal. He argued he had been wrongly identified and was the victim of a conspiracy. The court held that the application only raised material already canvassed in the earlier proceedings and disclosed no change in the law, and dismissed it summarily.
What did Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani apply for in [2023] SGCA 11?
In Criminal Motion No 11 of 2023, the applicant sought permission under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to make a review application in respect of the Court of Appeal's earlier judgment reported at [2020] 1 SLR 266, arguing he was wrongly identified.
What was Mohd Akebal convicted of before the review application in [2023] SGCA 11?
The applicant was convicted on one charge of trafficking not less than 29.06g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty on 27 February 2019; his conviction appeal was dismissed on 28 November 2019.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (4)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGCA 11)