TIKA PESIK 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, Chan Yi Cheng, Wong Woon Kwong |
Source: [2023] SGCA 44, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
TIKA PESIK v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2023] SGCA 44 is a Court of Appeal decision delivered by Tay Yong Kwang JCA on 30 November 2023 in Criminal Motion No 37 of 2023. The applicant, Tika Pesik, had been convicted of trafficking in 26.29g of diamorphine with common intention under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty, with her appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 20 August 2018. She filed CM 37 on 17 August 2023 seeking permission to review that decision under section 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging new evidence would prove her innocence. The court dismissed the application summarily.
[2023] SGCA 44 explained
TIKA PESIK v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 44) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 30 November 2023. It is categorised under 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 44 about?
TIKA PESIK v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGCA 44) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal 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 44 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Tika Pesik applied under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to review a Court of Appeal decision that had upheld her conviction for trafficking in 26.29g of diamorphine with common intention and the mandatory death sentence imposed on her. She alleged new evidence, including CCTV and in-car camera footage, would prove her innocence. The court found she had done no more than assert that such material existed and dismissed the application summarily.
What was Tika Pesik v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 44 about?
It was a criminal review application (CM 37 of 2023) in which Tika Pesik sought permission under section 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code to reopen her diamorphine-trafficking conviction and mandatory death sentence. Tay Yong Kwang JCA dismissed the application summarily on 30 November 2023.
What drug quantity was involved in Tika Pesik [2023] SGCA 44?
Tika Pesik was convicted of trafficking in 26.29g of diamorphine with common intention under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code, attracting the mandatory death sentence upheld on appeal in 2018.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (1)
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 44)