Munusamy Ramarmurth v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Outcome
Application dismissed“I dismiss the Application summarily without setting it down for hearing.”
Source: [2026] SGCA 30, Court of Appeal, decided 2 July 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 29 June–5 July 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Steven Chong |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Application dismissed |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Benedict Chan Wei Qi, Chin Jincheng |
Source: [2026] SGCA 30, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Munusamy Ramarmurth v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 30 was decided by Steven Chong JCA in the Court of Appeal on 2 July 2026, in Criminal Motion No 18 of 2026. The applicant, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment scheduled to be executed on 3 July 2026, had been convicted of possessing 57.54g of diamorphine for the purposes of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He contended that the Prosecution failed to disclose CCTV footage in breach of its Kadar obligations, that his second statement was inaccurate, and that the investigation officer lied. The court treated the motion as an application for permission to make a review application under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code and dismissed it summarily under s 394H(7), finding the footage irrelevant to the charge.
[2026] SGCA 30 explained
Munusamy Ramarmurth v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 30) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 2 July 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 30 about?
Munusamy Ramarmurth v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 30) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Stay of execution”, 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 30 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) 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 30 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGCA 18, [2026] SGCA 5, and [2023] SGHC 142, and 1 more. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Court of Appeal heard a criminal motion by Munusamy Ramarmurth, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment scheduled to be executed on 3 July 2026, who was convicted of possessing 57.54g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. He argued that undisclosed CCTV footage, an inaccurate second statement and dishonest conduct by the investigation officer showed an unfair trial. Treating the motion as an application for permission to make a review application under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code, Steven Chong JCA found the footage irrelevant to the charge and dismissed the application summarily.
What was Munusamy Ramarmurth v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 30 about?
It was a criminal motion by a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, convicted of possessing 57.54g of diamorphine for trafficking. He sought to challenge his conviction on the basis of undisclosed CCTV footage. The Court of Appeal treated it as a permission application for review.
Why did the Court of Appeal dismiss the application in [2026] SGCA 30?
Steven Chong JCA held the CCTV footage had no bearing on the drugs in the Red Bag that formed the charge, so it was not compelling and no Kadar breach arose. Other points had been canvassed earlier. Permission was refused summarily under s 394H(7).
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (11)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 30)