MOHAMED FAIZEL AHMED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 278 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 278 High Court (General Division) 3 October 2023 HC/MA 9214/2022/01 37 min read

6 cases cited (5 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

I dismissed the Appeal primarily for the following reasons:(a) The DJ rightly decided that the appellant’s account of the Four Individuals was a fabrication and should not be accepted.

Source: [2023] SGHC 278, High Court (General Division), decided 3 October 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	3 October 2023
Judge	See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	ARShanker Law Chambers, Attorney-General's Chambers, A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai, R. Arvindren

Source: [2023] SGHC 278, High Court (General Division), decided 3 October 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Appeal Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

See Kee Oon Delivered

Counsel (4)

ARShanker Law Chambers Firm Attorney-General's Chambers Firm A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai Counsel Appellant R. Arvindren Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Mohamed Faizel Ahmed Appellant

Case Significance

Mohamed Faizel Ahmed v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 278 is a grounds of decision of See Kee Oon J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 3 October 2023 in Criminal Motion No 52 of 2023 and Magistrate's Appeal No 9214 of 2022. The appellant, who had claimed trial to four charges and was convicted on 3 October 2022 of the first three, including offences under s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) for drug consumption, appealed against his conviction and brought a related criminal motion connected with the appeal, which concerned the adducing of fresh evidence. See Kee Oon J dismissed both the Motion and the Appeal on 31 July 2023, setting out his reasons in this decision.

[2023] SGHC 278 explained

MOHAMED FAIZEL AHMED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 278) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 3 October 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] SGHC 278 about?

MOHAMED FAIZEL AHMED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 278) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Appeal”, “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 278 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Mohamed Faizel Ahmed appealed his conviction on three drug-related charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act, including consumption offences under s 8(b)(i) and a possession offence under s 8(a), for which he received a global sentence of one year and six months' imprisonment, and he filed a criminal motion to adduce fresh evidence. See Kee Oon J found the requirements for fresh evidence unmet and the district judge's findings not plainly wrong, particularly on the unrebutted presumptions under ss 22 and 18(2) of the Act, and dismissed both the motion and the appeal.

What was Mohamed Faizel Ahmed v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 278 about?

It was an appeal against conviction and a related criminal motion heard by See Kee Oon J in the High Court, arising from the appellant's conviction on three charges including Misuse of Drugs Act consumption offences, with the decision delivered on 3 October 2023.

How did the court rule in [2023] SGHC 278?

See Kee Oon J dismissed both the Criminal Motion (No 52 of 2023) and the Magistrate's Appeal (No 9214 of 2022) on 31 July 2023, later setting out his reasons; the appellant had been convicted of three of four charges on 3 October 2022.