AFFANDI BIN MOHAMED HASSAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 17 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGCA 17 Court of Appeal 14 April 2026 CA/CCA 5/2023 · CA/CM 49/2024 21 min read

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 Respondent Chin Jin Cheng Counsel Respondent Heershan Kaur Counsel Respondent Josephine Iezu Costan Counsel Appellant Ng Jun Kai Counsel Respondent Suresh s/o Damodara Counsel 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.

[2026] SGCA 17 explained

AFFANDI BIN MOHAMED HASSAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 17) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 14 April 2026. It is categorised under Abuse of process, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, and Criminal Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 [2026] SGCA 17 about?

AFFANDI BIN MOHAMED HASSAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 17) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Abuse of process — Collateral purpose”, “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing”, “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal — Adducing fresh evidence”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 17 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 17 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGCA 9. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2026] SGCA 17?

Within this corpus, [2026] SGCA 17 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

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.