Mohd Noor Bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor

Mohd Noor bin Ismail was convicted on 21 March 2019 of importing not less than 212.57 grams of diamorphine in furtherance of a common intention with a co-accused, an offence under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Found to be a courier and given a certificate of substantive assistance, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. On appeal he alleged that the investigation officer had forced an admission from him and that his former counsel had given inadequate assistance. The matter was remitted, the High Court found the allegations not made out, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in Abdoll Mutaleb bin Raffik v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2023] SGCA 12.

In Criminal Motion No 31 of 2023, he sought permission under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to review that decision. He claimed that the court and the prosecutor had said at the appeal hearing that he was not involved in the case, repeated that the investigation officer had lied, and alleged that his counsel on appeal had made no submissions about the officer.

1. Whether the allegations against the investigation officer had already been dealt with
2. Whether the alleged remarks at the appeal hearing showed a miscarriage of justice
3. Whether the complaints against appeal counsel met the requirements of s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010

Permission requires a legitimate basis for review, citing Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters [2020] 2 SLR 1175: material that was not canvassed before, could not have been adduced earlier with reasonable diligence, and is compelling.

The allegation about the investigation officer had been raised, remitted and decided: the High Court found the officer did not lie and made no threat, and the Court of Appeal accepted those findings. Raising it again was an attempt to relitigate.

The prosecutor's affidavit denied that anyone made the remarks alleged. In any event, a court's decision lies in its pronouncement or judgment, not in comments during argument. Any such words could only have related to the co-appellant's original conspiracy charge, which was amended to leave out mention of the applicant; his own importation conviction was affirmed. It was at best a misunderstanding.

Appeal counsel explained that the applicant had confirmed his statements were voluntary and that any inducement did not operate on him, so there was no proper basis to argue the point, though counsel was ready to address it if needed. The court accepted this; counsel could not be faulted for not raising unmeritorious issues.

The court summarily dismissed the application under s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, finding no legitimate basis for a review of the appeal decision.