Mustaqim Bin Abdul Kadir v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2026] SGCA 15 Court of Appeal 24 March 2026 • CA/CCA 7/2023|CA/CM 11/2025 • 26 min read
9 cases cited (7 SG, 2 foreign)

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence Abuse of process — Collateral purpose — Appellant seeking retrial under guise of application to adduce fresh evidence Abuse of process — Inconsistent positions — Appellant seeking to adduce fresh evidence that he elected not to adduce at trial

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Abuse of process

Judges (3)

Judith Prakash Coram Steven Chong Delivered Tay Yong Kwang Coram

Counsel (6)

Andre Jumabhoy LLC Firm Attorney-General's Chambers (Criminal Justice Division) Firm Andre Darius Jumabhoy Counsel Appellant Aristotle Eng Counsel Appellant Benedict Chan Wei Qi Counsel Respondent Claire Poh Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir Appellant

Case Significance

In Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 15, the Court of Appeal on 24 March 2026 dismissed both the appellant's criminal appeal against conviction (CCA 7/2023) and his motion to adduce fresh evidence (CM 11/2025). Mustaqim had been convicted of a capital charge of trafficking not less than 56.8g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. His central trial defence was that 42.62g of the diamorphine formed two bundles he had mistakenly received from a contact named 'Zack' and intended to return. The Court, comprising Tay Yong Kwang JCA, Steven Chong JCA (delivering the grounds), and Judith Prakash SJ, found that Mustaqim's application to adduce fresh evidence constituted an abuse of process on two grounds: he sought a retrial under the guise of adducing fresh evidence, and he attempted to adduce evidence he had elected not to use at trial. Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Aristotle Eng of Andre Jumabhoy LLC represented the appellant, with Benedict Chan Wei Qi and Claire Poh of the Attorney-General's Chambers (Criminal Justice Division) for the respondent.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
24 March 2026
Case summary
Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2026] SGCA 15
Court of Appeal — Criminal Appeal No 7 of 2023 and Criminal Motion No 11 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Steven Chong JCA):
Outcome: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction on a capital charge for drug trafficking, finding that the appellant’s application to adduce further evidence on appeal was an abuse of process.
Pertinent and significant points of the judgment
•  It is an abuse of process for a party to deliberately proceed without certain evidence, and then after losing the case to seek to adduce that evidence on appeal.
1 This was an appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the General Division of the High Court in respect of a single capital charge for possession of diamorphine for the purposes of trafficking.
Background to the appeal
2 The appellant was charged with the possession of not less than 56.8g of diamorphine for the purposes of trafficking. His central defence at the trial was that 42.62g of the diamorphine were part of two bundles of drugs (“Unwanted Drugs”) that he had mistakenly received, and intended to return. The appellant also challenged the admissibility of seven statements he had given to the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”), on the basis of alleged promises or inducements made by the CNB officers.
3 On appeal against his conviction and sentence, the appellant sought to adduce further evidence, comprising psychiatric evidence that the appellant claimed would raise a reasonable doubt as to his state of mind at the time when his statements were recorded, such that the statements ought to be excluded.
Decision on appeal
4 The court dismissed the application to adduce further evidence:
a. The evidence concerning the appellant’s alleged drug withdrawal symptoms could have been obtained during the trial: at [17].
b. The application to adduce further evidence was also an abuse of process, as the appellant’s real aim appeared to be to secure a retrial in order to pursue a different defence from the one he had pursued at the trial: at [20], [22].
c. The further evidence was also not material. It was limited in scope, speculative, and contradicted by evidence of the actual condition and behaviour of the appellant at or around the time the various statements were recorded. Even if the further evidence was accepted, it could not explain away the other pieces of evidence that the Judge had relied on in convicting the appellant: at [24], [26], [28].
5 The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against his conviction and sentence:
a. The appellant’s Unwanted Drugs defence was not mentioned in any of his seven CNB statements, and was clearly an afterthought: at [27].
b. The appellant’s arguments in relation to his CNB statements could not be accepted. First, the fact that the appellant told the psychiatrist during his psychiatric assessment that CNB did not make him any promises supported the inference that the alleged representations by the CNB officers did not take place. Second, the allegation that a CNB officer had told the appellant that if he cooperated and the appellant was found to be a courier, he could get life imprisonment, could not objectively be considered an inducement. Third, in respect of an alleged representation by another CNB officer, the Judge was entitled to form the view that the officer’s evidence was more credible than the appellant’s evidence: at [39], [44], [48].
c. Key pieces of evidence supported the Judge’s conclusion that the appellant intended to traffic the drugs. The inconsistent statements of the person who handed the appellant the drugs undermined that person’s credibility, but did not lend any support to the appellant’s defence that he was mistakenly handed more drugs than he had ordered: at [53], [57].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.

Why did the Court of Appeal dismiss Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir's application to adduce fresh evidence in [2026] SGCA 15?

The Court of Appeal held that Mustaqim's CM 11/2025 application was an abuse of process on two bases: he was seeking a retrial disguised as a fresh-evidence application, and he sought to rely on evidence he had deliberately chosen not to adduce at his capital drug-trafficking trial in Criminal Case 44 of 2022.

What was Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir convicted of in the case decided by the Court of Appeal in March 2026?

Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir was convicted of a capital charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking not less than 56.8g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, punishable under s 33(1), with the Court of Appeal upholding conviction on 24 March 2026.

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)
s 258(3)
Evidence Act (Cap 97)
s 136
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)
s 33(1) s 33B

Cases Cited (9)

SG (1)
[2025] SGCA 9
SLR (6)
[2014] 3 SLR 299 [2019] 2 SLR 341 [2021] 2 SLR 1169 [2022] 1 SLR 814 [2022] 3 SLR 861 [2025] 1 SLR 259
UK (2)
[1954] 1 WLR 1489 [2006] EWCA Civ 1621

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 15)