Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 24
The document is a judgment from the Singapore Court of Appeal in the case Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 24. The case concerns a criminal motion (CM 29/2024) filed by Mr. Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, seeking to review an earlier Court of Appeal decision.
Key Points:
1. Background:
- The applicant, Mr. Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa, had previously filed multiple applications seeking reviews of earlier judgments related to his case, all of which had been dismissed.
- In his latest application (CM 29/2024), he sought a review of a decision denying him permission to apply for a further review (the CM 15 Judgment).
2. Applicant’s Case:
- The applicant argued that there was a miscarriage of justice in the earlier judgments, particularly in how his involvement in the drug trafficking case was characterized.
- He asserted that the court failed to consider new evidence and legal arguments that could have impacted the outcome.
3. Prosecution’s Case:
- The Prosecution argued that the application was an abuse of process and should be dismissed because it attempted to bypass statutory prohibitions on repeat applications for review.
- They also requested that the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Ong Ying Ping, be ordered to personally pay costs due to the frivolous nature of the application.
4. Court’s Decision:
- The Court of Appeal, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, dismissed the application, holding that it was impermissible under the applicable legal framework.
- The court found that the application was effectively an attempt to relitigate issues that had already been settled and was barred by statutory provisions.
- The court also addressed the request for costs against the applicant’s counsel, though the specific decision on this matter is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application on the grounds that it was not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The decision emphasized the court’s commitment to upholding procedural safeguards against abuse of process in criminal review applications.
