Mohd Noor Bin Ismail v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tay Yong Kwang |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Kenny Yang, Lau Wing Yum |
Source: [2023] SGCA 33, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Case Significance
Mohd Noor bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 33 is a judgment of Tay Yong Kwang JCA in the Court of Appeal, delivered on 20 October 2023 in Criminal Motion No 31 of 2023. Mohd Noor bin Ismail applied under section 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 for permission to review the Court of Appeal's earlier decision dismissing his appeal against his conviction for importing not less than 212.57 grams of diamorphine and his sentence of life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. He advanced three claims, including that it had been said he was not involved, that the investigation officer had lied in court, and that his lead counsel did not make submissions about the investigation officer. The excerpt sets out the application without disclosing the court's decision.
[2023] SGCA 33 explained
Mohd Noor Bin Ismail v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 33) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 20 October 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 33 about?
Mohd Noor Bin Ismail v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 33) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review — Permission 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 33 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 33 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGCA 12. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2023] SGCA 33?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGCA 33 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
Mohd Noor bin Ismail applied under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to review an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had upheld his conviction for importing diamorphine and his sentence of life imprisonment and caning. He alleged errors in the appeal hearing and inadequate conduct by his counsel. The court found he had furnished no new evidence and made unsubstantiated allegations, and summarily dismissed the application.
What was Mohd Noor bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 33 about?
It was an application by Mohd Noor bin Ismail before Tay Yong Kwang JCA under section 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to review the Court of Appeal's earlier dismissal of his drug-importation appeal, filed as Criminal Motion No 31 of 2023.
What conviction underlay the review application in [2023] SGCA 33?
Mohd Noor bin Ismail had been convicted of importing not less than 212.57 grams of diamorphine and sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, and sought permission to review the Court of Appeal's dismissal of that appeal.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (5)
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 33)