Muhammad Abdul Hadi Bin Haron v Public Prosecutor

Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron was instructed by Muhammad Salleh bin Hamid to collect two black-taped bundles from a woman known as Kakak in Johor Bahru. On 22 July 2015 he collected them, hid them in his motorcycle and messaged Salleh "total I have 2 pack only" and "250 each". He returned to Singapore and was arrested at home that evening, where he led officers to the bundles, which contained methamphetamine. In his long statement recorded on 27 July 2015 he said for the first time that he thought the bundles held gold and cash, as he was a courier for Salleh, whom he knew as a gold and currency investor.

At the joint trial, the trial judge found on 10 January 2020 that he had failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge in s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, treating his defence as an afterthought, his explanations as inconsistent and his lies as deliberate, and convicted him. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 23 November 2020 in CA/CCA 36/2019. On 2 December 2022 he filed Criminal Motion No 27 of 2022, seeking leave under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) to review that decision, relying on Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 180, which held that s 18(2) presumes only actual knowledge and cannot be used to presume wilful blindness. The motion was heard by a single Judge of the Court of Appeal.

1. Whether the Prosecution ran an alternative case of wilful blindness through the s 18(2) presumption, making the change in the law in Gobi relevant.
2. Whether the applicant showed sufficient material on which the court could conclude there had been a miscarriage of justice under s 394J of the CPC.
3. Whether the additional requirement in s 394J(4), that the change in the law arose after the appeal concluded, was met.

The court explained that leave requires a legitimate basis for review, meaning sufficient material, compelling enough to show almost conclusively a miscarriage of justice, and, for a change in the law, that the change came after the earlier proceedings ended. Like the earlier failed applications in Khartik, Datchinamurthy and Rahmat, this one rested on a misreading of the trial record.

The review is directed at the appellate decision. In Hadi (CA), the court upheld the finding that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of actual knowledge, focusing on the credibility of his defence and inconsistencies in his statements, with no reference to wilful blindness. The trial judge had likewise used no such language. The Prosecution's opening relied on the presumptions in s 18, and in cross-examination it put actual knowledge to him. Its question about suspicious circumstances, and later phrases such as "turn a blind eye" in closing submissions, were aimed at showing that his belief that the bundles held gold and cash was not credible, by comparing his account with what an ordinary reasonable person would have done, in line with Obeng Comfort. The alternative case was the presumption of actual knowledge, not wilful blindness. Since Gobi was irrelevant, the sufficiency requirement was not met and there could be no miscarriage of justice.

On s 394J(4), Gobi was decided on 19 October 2020, slightly over a month before Hadi (CA). The court accepted its effect might not have been fully appreciated, and did not strictly enforce the requirement, since the argument failed on its merits anyway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to review, finding no legitimate basis for reopening the concluded appeal in CCA 36.