A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Steven Chong |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | ARShanker Law Chambers, Attorney-General's Chambers, A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai, Lee Zu Zhao, Rimplejit Kaur, Teo Siu Ming |
Source: [2023] SGCA 9, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 9 is a Court of Appeal decision in Criminal Motion No 26 of 2022, with Steven Chong JCA delivering the judgment reserved on 28 February 2023. The applicant sought permission under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to make a review application in respect of the Court of Appeal's earlier judgment in CA/CCA 24/2021, reported at [2022] 2 SLR 538. The application was premised on the "Apportionment Argument" — that in a drug-trafficking case where the accused ran a total-consumption defence, the court should apportion and deduct a quantity meant for his own consumption even after rejecting that defence, an issue arising under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
[2023] SGCA 9 explained
A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor ([2023] SGCA 9) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 28 February 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, 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 9 about?
A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor ([2023] SGCA 9) 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 — 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 9 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.
How influential is [2023] SGCA 9?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGCA 9 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. 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.
What was A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 9 about?
In Criminal Motion No 26 of 2022, A Steven s/o Paul Raj applied under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to review the Court of Appeal's earlier judgment in CA/CCA 24/2021 ([2022] 2 SLR 538), relying on an "Apportionment Argument" about drug quantities.
What is the Apportionment Argument in A Steven s/o Paul Raj ([2023] SGCA 9)?
The Apportionment Argument contended that where a drug-trafficking accused runs a total-consumption defence, the court should apportion and deduct the quantity meant for his own consumption even after rejecting that defence. Steven Chong JCA used the case to examine that Misuse of Drugs Act issue.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (15)
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 9)