Mohd Noor bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang JCA
• Judgment Date: 20 October 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGCA 33
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 31 of 2023
• Hearing Date: 02 October 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGCA 33
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: The applicant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Lau Wing Yum and Kenny Yang (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Criminal review,Permission for review
• Published date: 20 October 2023

Tay Yong Kwang JCA:

CA/CM 31/2023 (“CM 31”) is an application by Mohd Noor bin Ismail (“Noor”) pursuant to s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) for permission to review the Court of Appeal’s decision in Abdoll Mutaleb bin Raffik v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2023] SGCA 12 (“Mohd Noor CA”). In Mohd Noor CA at [123], the Court of Appeal dismissed Noor’s appeal against his conviction on a charge of importing not less than 212.57 grams of diamorphine and his sentence of life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.

In CM 31, Noor makes the following three claims: First, he claims that the Court of Appeal stated during the hearing of the appeal that he “was not involved in this case” and that Deputy Public Prosecutor Lau Wing Yum (“DPP Lau”) also stated that “Noor was indeed not involved”. Second, he repeats his previous allegation that Investigation Officer Prashant Sukumaran (“the IO”) lied in court. Third, he alleges that Mr R Thrumurgan (“Mr Thrumurgan”), the lead counsel who represented him at the remittal hearing and the appeal, “did not make submissions about the IO” during the hearing before the Court of Appeal. For the avoidance of doubt, this is a separate allegation from Noor’s earlier accusation that his previous defence counsel (ie, the lawyers that represented him before Mr Thrumurgan and his team were appointed) had given him inadequate legal assistance. This earlier allegation against Noor’s previous defence counsel was dismissed by the High Court and that decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal: Mohd Noor CA at [81].

Having considered: (a) Noor’s affidavit dated 13 June 2023 (“Noor’s Affidavit”); (b) DPP Lau’s affidavit dated 20 September 2023 (“DPP Lau’s Affidavit”); (c) the written statement of Mr Thrumurgan dated 3 September 2023 (“Mr Thrumurgan’s Written Statement”); and (d) the Prosecution’s written submissions dated 2 October 2023, I summarily dismiss CM 31 pursuant to s 394H(7) of the CPC. This is because Noor has failed to meet the requirements for a review application under s 394H of the CPC. Noor has not furnished any new evidence and instead has made unsubstantiated allegations that are either contradicted by the available evidence and/or previously addressed by the Court of Appeal in Mohd Noor CA.

Factual background and procedural history

At the trial, Noor indicated that he wished to plead guilty to his charge of importing not less than 212.57 grams of diamorphine, in furtherance of the common intention with his co-accused Mohd Zaini bin Zainutdin (“Zaini”), an offence under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). Noor did not testify when he was called upon to give evidence in his defence. He was subsequently convicted on this charge on 21 March 2019 by the High Court: Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini bin Zainutdin and others [2019] SGHC 162 at [2]; Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini bin Zainutdin and others [2020] SGHC 76 (“Mohd Noor HC”) at [13]. As Noor was issued a certificate of substantive assistance and was found to be a courier, he was spared the death penalty and was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane with the imprisonment backdated to the date of his arrest: Mohd Noor HC at [13]; Mohd Noor CA at [44].

During the first hearing of Noor’s appeal on 18 August 2020, he alleged that: (a) the IO had “forced” him into admitting that he knew his co-accused had brought drugs into Singapore; and (b) that he was given inadequate and improper legal assistance by his former defence counsel, Mr Nicholas Aw and Mr Mahadevan Lukshumayeh. The Court of Appeal directed that the matter be remitted to the High Court for further evidence to be taken on these allegations.

Noor presented his case on these allegations with the assistance of Mr Thrumurgan and his defence team between 3–5 August and 4 October 2021. Thereafter, the High Court found that Noor’s allegations were not made out and held that there was no basis to revisit the conclusion reached that Noor be convicted on the charge against him: Public Prosecutor v Mohd Noor bin Ismail [2022] SGHC 66 (“Mohd Noor (Remittal)”) at [110].

Noor’s appeal was heard again by the Court of Appeal on 4 August 2022. The Court of Appeal released its decision on 26 April 2023, dismissing Noor’s appeal and upholding the sentence imposed on him by the High Court: Mohd Noor CA at [123]. In respect of Noor’s allegations against his former defence counsel, the Court of Appeal held that Noor had not come close to the high standard required to establish inadequate legal assistance: Mohd Noor CA at [81]. In respect of Noor’s allegations of a threat, inducement or promise (“TIP”) that emanated from the IO, the Court of Appeal held that there was no reason to disagree with the finding of the High Court that Noor had acknowledged that the TIP, if any, did not operate on his mind: Mohd Noor CA at [82].

My decision...