Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tay Yong Kwang |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Ong Ying Ping Esq, Chong Yong, Ong Ying Ping, Stephanie Koh, Terence Chua |
Source: [2023] SGCA 15, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 15 is a judgment of Tay Yong Kwang JCA in the Court of Appeal, delivered on 16 May 2023 in Criminal Motion No 23 of 2023. The applicant, Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff, was convicted by the trial judge in January 2019 of possessing cannabis for the purpose of trafficking and, absent a Certificate of Substantive Assistance, was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty; his earlier appeal (CCA 3) and disclosure application (CM 13) were dismissed in August 2019. The motion concerns his application for permission to commence a criminal review under the Misuse of Drugs Act framework.
[2023] SGCA 15 explained
Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 15) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 16 May 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGCA 15 about?
Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 15) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review — Leave for review”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGCA 15 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGCA 15 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGCA 8. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff, who had been convicted of possessing cannabis for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty, applied for permission to make a review application in respect of the Court of Appeal's earlier dismissal of his appeal. He raised arguments about undisclosed phone analyses, purported CCTV footage, and attribution of possession to another person. The court found no new evidence meeting the requirements for review and held the principles in Nabill had no bearing on the facts, dismissing the application summarily.
What did the court consider in Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 15?
Tay Yong Kwang JCA considered the applicant's Criminal Motion No 23 of 2023 seeking permission for a criminal review of his conviction for possessing cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, for which he had been sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. Delivered 16 May 2023.
Why was Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff sentenced to the mandatory death penalty ([2023] SGCA 15)?
He was convicted in January 2019 of possessing cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, and because the Public Prosecutor did not issue him a Certificate of Substantive Assistance, he was sentenced to undergo the mandatory death penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (7)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
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 15)