AHMAD DANIAL BIN MOHAMED RAFA'EE v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Outcome
Appeal dismissedI dismissed the appeal.
Source: [2023] SGHC 94, High Court (General Division), decided 13 April 2023. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Sundaresh Menon |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Withers KhattarWong LLP, Laura Yeo Wei Wen, Lim Shin Hui, Nathan Shashidran, R. Arvindren, Yang Ziliang |
Source: [2023] SGHC 94, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
AHMAD DANIAL BIN MOHAMED RAFA'EE v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2023] SGHC 94 was decided by Sundaresh Menon CJ in the General Division of the High Court (Magistrate's Appeal No 9133 of 2022/01) on 13 April 2023. The appellant, Ahmad Danial bin Mohamed Rafa'ee, had been charged with murder under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code on 17 December 2020 in connection with the 2007 disappearance of Ms Felicia Teo Wei Ling; about 18 months later, on 27 June 2022, the Prosecution applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNATA), which the district judge granted. The appellant appealed, contending that the district judge should instead have ordered a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DATA), and the Chief Justice dismissed the appeal.
[2023] SGHC 94 explained
AHMAD DANIAL BIN MOHAMED RAFA'EE v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 94) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 13 April 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] SGHC 94 about?
AHMAD DANIAL BIN MOHAMED RAFA'EE v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 94) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Charge — Discharge”, 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 94 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What did the High Court decide in Ahmad Danial bin Mohamed Rafa'ee v Public Prosecutor ([2023] SGHC 94)?
In [2023] SGHC 94, Sundaresh Menon CJ dismissed Ahmad Danial's Magistrate's Appeal No 9133 of 2022/01, upholding the district judge's order granting the Prosecution a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNATA) rather than a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DATA) on the murder charge.
Why was Ahmad Danial bin Mohamed Rafa'ee charged with murder ([2023] SGHC 94)?
He was charged on 17 December 2020 under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code over the 2007 disappearance of Ms Felicia Teo Wei Ling; he and Mr Ragil were the last two people to see her alive.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (13)
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] SGHC 94)