Muhammad Abdul Hadi Bin Haron v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2023] SGCA 4 Court of Appeal 3 February 2023 CA/CM 27/2022

8 cases cited

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	3 February 2023
Judge	Steven Chong
Charges / claim	Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Marcus Foo, Rimplejit Kaur

Source: [2023] SGCA 4, Court of Appeal, decided 3 February 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review — Leave for review

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Steven Chong Delivered

Counsel (3)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Marcus Foo Counsel for the respondent Rimplejit Kaur Counsel for the respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent

Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron Applicant

Case Significance

Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 4 is a judgment of the Court of Appeal, with judgment reserved by Steven Chong JCA and delivered on 3 February 2023 in Criminal Motion No 27 of 2022. The applicant sought leave under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to review the earlier Court of Appeal decision in CA/CCA 36/2019, reported as Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2021] 1 SLR 537. The application was premised on the change in the law from Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 180 concerning wilful blindness and the s 18(2) presumption of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and formed part of a series of Gobi-inspired review applications.

Summary

Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron applied under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code for leave to review an earlier Court of Appeal decision upholding his drug conviction, relying on the change in the law in Gobi concerning wilful blindness and the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found the Prosecution's case had been based on actual knowledge rather than wilful blindness, so Gobi was not relevant, and dismissed the application.

What did the applicant seek in Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v PP [2023] SGCA 4?

The applicant sought leave under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to review the concluded Court of Appeal decision in CA/CCA 36/2019, relying on the change in the law from Gobi concerning wilful blindness and the s 18(2) presumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

How does [2023] SGCA 4 relate to the Gobi decision?

The application was one of several inspired by Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 180, where the Court of Appeal held that knowledge presumed under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act is confined to actual knowledge, not wilful blindness. Steven Chong JCA reserved judgment, delivered 3 February 2023.