RAMDHAN BIN LAJIS v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2025] SGCA 22 Court of Appeal 20 May 2025 • CA/CM 9/2025 • 15 min read

6 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Criminal Sentencing and Procedure — Criminal review — Application for permission to make review application — Section 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Criminal Sentencing and Procedure

Judges (1)

Steven Chong Delivered

Counsel (3)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Heershan Kaur Counsel Respondent James Chew Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Ramdhan bin Lajis Applicant

Case Significance

[2025] SGCA 22 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 20 May 2025 concerning Criminal Sentencing and Procedure, specifically addressing criminal review. The judgment was delivered by Steven Chong. The case was brought by Ramdhan bin Lajis (applicant) against Public Prosecutor (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 6 cases and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code and the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Summary

Ramdhan bin Lajis, convicted of trafficking not less than 29.51g of diamorphine and sentenced to death, filed a second application for permission to review his conviction under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code, after his first review application was dismissed in August 2024. He raised arguments about the accuracy of drug analysis and the credibility of a co-accused's testimony. The application was summarily dismissed as devoid of merit and statutorily barred, with the court finding no new material that had not been previously canvassed.

What was decided in [2025] SGCA 22?

[2025] SGCA 22 (RAMDHAN BIN LAJIS v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) is a Court of Appeal decision from 20 May 2025 addressing Criminal Sentencing and Procedure, specifically criminal review. The judgment was delivered by Steven Chong.

Who were the parties in RAMDHAN BIN LAJIS v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR?

The applicant in [2025] SGCA 22 was Ramdhan bin Lajis, and the respondent was Public Prosecutor. Legal representation included Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 20 May 2025 in the Court of Appeal.