HAMZAH BIN IBRAHIM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Hamzah bin Ibrahim, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, was convicted in the High Court of possessing 26.29g of diamorphine for trafficking, after collecting the drugs from a co-accused in a car on 20 December 2014. He admitted possession, knowledge and the purpose of sale in his statements and testimony, and offered no substantive defence: Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Sudi and others [2017] SGHC 228. Although he received a certificate of substantive assistance, he was not found to be a courier, so the mandatory death penalty was imposed. His appeal, pursued against sentence only in CA/CCA 26/2017, was dismissed on 20 August 2018, and his clemency petition was rejected on 5 July 2019. He later joined several civil applications with other prisoners.

On 7 February 2025 he filed Criminal Motion No 3 of 2025 in person, seeking permission under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to make a review application and asking for a retrial. He claimed that narcotics officers or the Prosecution had promised he would avoid the death penalty if he cooperated, which he said tainted his statements and defence, and argued that the alternative sentencing regime in s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence.

Issues

1. Whether the alleged promise of a non-capital sentence was sufficient material showing a miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence, and whether that argument rested on a change in the law.
3. Whether the delay in bringing the application weighed against permission.

Holding

A single judge of the Court of Appeal summarily dismissed the application for permission to make a review application, without setting it down for hearing, under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010.

Reasoning

On the alleged promise, his affidavit described only an impression that cooperation would spare him, and a self-perceived inducement is not an inducement under s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010; telling an accused about the alternative sentencing requirements is also not a promise. The Prosecution had made clear before trial that it did not regard him as a courier. During the trial he withdrew his challenge to the admissibility of his statements and affirmed they were voluntary, and on appeal, with new counsel, he chose not to challenge his conviction and confirmed his statements were true, even after the death penalty had been imposed.

On s 33B(2), the court rejected the argument, following the majority in Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another [2015] 1 SLR 834 that an accused is not obliged to cooperate and can run a defence while still showing he was a courier. The remarks he relied on had been rejected by that majority. In any event the argument was based on decisions available at his trial and appeal, not on a later change in the law as s 394J(4) requires.

The application came more than six years after the appeal was dismissed, and his explanation was meaningless. He had taken part in other proceedings but did nothing about his conviction for almost six years, which the court found fortified the conclusion that the application had no prospect of success.

From the judgment