AFFANDI BIN MOHAMED HASSAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2026] SGCA 17 Court of Appeal 14 April 2026 CA/CCA 5/2023 · CA/CM 49/2024

8 cases cited (7 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

“…we dismissed the appeal in CCA 5 as well.”

Source: [2026] SGCA 17, Court of Appeal, decided 14 April 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	14 April 2026
Judges	Ang Cheng Hock, Steven Chong, Tay Yong Kwang
Charges / claim	Abuse of process, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Criminal Law
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Damodara Ong LLC, David Nayar and Associates, Anandan Bala, Chin Jin Cheng, Heershan Kaur, Josephine Iezu Costan, Ng Jun Kai, Suresh s/o Damodara

Source: [2026] SGCA 17, Court of Appeal, decided 14 April 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Abuse of process — Collateral purpose Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Trials — Whether accused person received inadequate legal assistance from trial counsel

Practice Areas

Abuse of process Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Criminal Law

Judges (3)

Ang Cheng Hock Coram Steven Chong Coram Tay Yong Kwang Delivered

Counsel (9)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Damodara Ong LLC Firm David Nayar and Associates Firm Anandan Bala Counsel for the respondent

Chin Jin Cheng Counsel for the respondent

Heershan Kaur Counsel for the respondent Josephine Iezu Costan Counsel for the appellant Ng Jun Kai Counsel for the respondent Suresh s/o Damodara Counsel for the appellant

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent

Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan Appellant

Case Significance

In Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 17, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence for trafficking in not less than 24.64 grams of diamorphine found at a Serangoon Avenue 2 flat on 10 December 2020. The judgment was delivered on 14 April 2026 by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, sitting with Steven Chong JCA and Ang Cheng Hock JCA, after the appeal and a related criminal motion were argued on 6 March 2026. The court addressed multiple grounds, including whether Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan received inadequate legal assistance from his trial counsel, an application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, and allegations of abuse of process through a collateral purpose. Charges were framed under section 5(1)(a) read with sections 5(2) and 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, carrying mandatory capital punishment. The court's treatment of the inadequate-assistance-of-counsel argument under the Criminal Procedure Code and the standards for admitting fresh evidence at the appellate stage are the principal points of legal significance.

What were the key legal issues in Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 17?

The Court of Appeal decided on 14 April 2026 whether Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan had received inadequate legal assistance from trial counsel, whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal, and whether the proceedings were an abuse of process. All grounds failed and the conviction for trafficking not less than 24.64g of diamorphine was upheld.

What quantity of drugs formed the basis of the trafficking charge in [2026] SGCA 17?

The charge related to 70 packets and 2 straws containing not less than 2,752.64 grams of granular or powdery substance, analysed as containing not less than 24.64 grams of diamorphine, found on 10 December 2020 at Block 305 Serangoon Avenue 2, #04-88, Singapore.