Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Steven Chong JCA |
Judgment Date | 05 August 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGCA 74 |
Published date | 11 August 2021 |
Docket Number | Criminal Motion No 17 of 2021 |
Year | 2021 |
Hearing Date | 12 July 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Chan Tai-Hui Jason SC, Leong Yi-Ming, Zeslene Mao Huijing, Tan Xue Yang (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Citation | [2021] SGCA 74 |
Defendant Counsel | Muhamad Imaduddien and Chin Jincheng (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Statutory offences,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Criminal Law,Misuse of Drugs Act,Leave for review,Criminal review |
This is an application by Rahmat bin Karimon (“Rahmat”) for leave under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) to review an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/CCA 49/2017, which was reported in
This is not the first application for leave to review a concluded criminal appeal on the basis of the change of law in
To succeed in a leave application under s 394H of the CPC, the application must disclose a legitimate basis for the exercise of this court’s power of review. The court hearing such a leave application would have to consider the requirements set out in s 394J of the CPC. In particular, under s 394J(2), there must be (a) “sufficient material on which the appellate court may conclude” that (b) there has been “a miscarriage of justice” (
The factual background of
On 27 May 2015, sometime before 6.51pm, Rahmat entered Singapore from Malaysia via the Woodlands Checkpoint in a car. He was with his wife and their three children. Pursuant to Kanna’s earlier instructions, after entering Singapore, Rahmat drove to Rochor Road where he met up with a male subject known as “Bai”, who instructed Rahmat to meet Zainal bin Hamad (“Zainal”) at the IKEA store located in Tampines, Singapore (“IKEA”). Rahmat was known to Zainal as “Abang” and Zainal was known to Rahmat as “26”.
Rahmat and Zainal then met at the staircase on the second level of IKEA. At about 8.35pm, Zainal passed S$8,000 to Rahmat. After which, Rahmat placed a green bag (“Bag”) at the staircase landing in front of Zainal before leaving IKEA. Rahmat then met up with his wife and children and drove the car with his family to Woodlands Checkpoint. At the checkpoint, Rahmat and his wife were arrested by officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”). Rahmat’s wife was searched, and S$8,000 was found concealed in her brassiere. Rahmat had passed the S$8,000 he received from Zainal to his wife and had told her to conceal it in her brassiere whilst they were en route to Woodlands Checkpoint.
Zainal thereafter picked up the Bag and placed it in a warehouse located on the second floor of IKEA. At about 9.25pm, CNB officers entered the warehouse and arrested Zainal. The Bag was found to contain one red coloured plastic bag containing three plastic packets of 1381.7g of granular/powdery substance (the “Drugs”). The Drugs were subsequently found to contain not less than 53.64g of diamorphine, a controlled drug. Neither Rahmat nor Zainal were authorised under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder to traffic or be in possession of a controlled drug.
The trial and the trial judge’s decision Rahmat was jointly tried with Zainal before the Judge. Zainal was charged with having not less than 53.64g of diamorphine in his possession for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(l)(
At the trial, the Prosecution had run three arguments in its closing submissions: (a) Rahmat could not rebut the s 18(2) presumption of knowledge; alternatively, (b) Rahmat was either wilfully blind or (c) had actual knowledge that the Bag contained diamorphine. Rahmat’s defence was that he believed that he was carrying medicine.
The Judge convicted Zainal and Rahmat of their respective charges and imposed the mandatory sentence of death on them, as no certificate of substantive assistance was provided. The Judge’s decision is reported in
On 11 September 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed both Zainal’s and Rahmat’s appeals against conviction, and delivered its grounds of decision (“GD”) in
On 21 January 2020, an order under s 313(
On 20 February 2020, the Court of Appeal granted leave to the applicant in
It first bears emphasis that the review process is directed at the earlier decision of the
Following the seminal decision in
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General
...of sufficiency and miscarriage of justice are a composite requirement under s 394J(2) of the CPC: Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 860 at [22]. “Sufficient material” must (a) not have been canvassed at any stage of proceedings in the criminal matter before the application......
-
Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v Public Prosecutor
...(“Khartik”), Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGCA 30 (“Datchinamurthy”) and Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 860 (“Rahmat”), the applicants brought leave applications on the basis that following Gobi, the presumption of knowledge under the s 18(2) pr......
-
A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor
...CPC as two discrete elements, s 394J(2) of the CPC ultimately lays down a composite requirement (Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 860 at [22]), and the analysis of the remaining requirements under ss 394J(3) and 394J(4) of the CPC may overlap to some degree. With that in ......
-
Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor
...of sufficiency and miscarriage of justice are a composite requirement under s 394J(2) of the CPC (Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 860 at [22]). As per s 394J(3)(c) of the CPC, the new material is thus only sufficient if it is “capable of showing almost conclusively that ......