Muhammad Abdul Hadi Bin Haron v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| 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 — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
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.
[2023] SGCA 4 explained
Muhammad Abdul Hadi Bin Haron v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 4) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 3 February 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 4 about?
Muhammad Abdul Hadi Bin Haron v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 4) 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 4 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.
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.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (8)
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 4)