PP v Mohd Noor: Remittal Hearing on Drug Importation & Adequacy of Legal Counsel

The High Court of Singapore heard a remittal pursuant to s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohd Noor Bin Ismail, following appeals against the conviction of Mohd Noor and his co-accused for drug importation. The remittal focused on allegations of improper advice from Noor's trial counsel and an alleged inducement by the investigation officer. The court found that the conduct of the trial counsel was not so wanting as to give rise to a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice, and that no inducement, threat, or promise was made by the investigation officer. The court concluded that the matters raised by Noor did not affect his conviction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

The matters raised by Mohd Noor did not affect his conviction.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Findings on Remittal

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court remits Mohd Noor's drug conviction appeal for additional evidence on trial counsel's advice and alleged inducement by investigation officer. Conviction upheld.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyConviction UpheldWon
Chng Luey Chi of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kenny Yang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mohd Noor bin IsmailAccused, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chng Luey ChiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kenny YangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lau Wing YumAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sureshan s/o T KulasingamSureshan LLC
Tan Jun YinTrident Law Corporation
Samuel Ang Rong EnSureshan LLC
Thrumurgan s/o RamapiramTrident Law Corporation
U Saranya NaiduTrident Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Noor was charged with importing diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
  2. Noor initially indicated he wished to plead guilty but the matter proceeded to trial.
  3. Noor elected not to give evidence in his defence at trial.
  4. Noor appealed against his conviction and sentence.
  5. Noor alleged his trial counsel gave improper advice and an investigation officer made threats.
  6. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the High Court to take additional evidence on Noor's allegations.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Mohd Noor bin Ismail, Criminal Case No 32 of 2018, [2022] SGHC 66
  2. Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini Bin Zainutdin and others, , [2019] SGHC 162
  3. Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini Bin Zainutdin and others, , [2020] SGHC 76

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Zaini, Noor and Apoi packed diamorphine into Zaini’s car in Malaysia.
Noor drove the car laden with drugs into Singapore.
Noor and Zaini were arrested at Tuas Checkpoint.
Mr. Aw was appointed as counsel for Noor.
First meeting between Mr. Aw and Noor.
Mr. Aw explained capital offence to Noor.
Mr. Aw listed two options for Noor: challenge statements or cooperate.
Noor gave statement denying knowledge that Zaini was bringing drugs into Singapore.
Noor provided written instructions to Mr. Aw.
Noor gave statement admitting knowledge that Zaini was bringing drugs into Singapore.
Zaini gave evidence.
Noor elected not to give evidence in his defence.
All three co-accused convicted after trial.
Court of Appeal decided to remit Criminal Appeal No 8 of 2020.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Inadequate Legal Assistance
    • Outcome: The court found that the conduct of the trial counsel was not so wanting as to give rise to a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to keep proper contemporaneous records
      • Failure to advise on available options
      • Failure to pursue defence of lack of knowledge
      • Advising accused to remain silent
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 1 SLR 907
  2. Inducement, Threat, or Promise by Investigation Officer
    • Outcome: The court found that no inducement, threat, or promise was made by the investigation officer.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Alleged threat of death penalty
      • Alleged false account of events
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 557

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against Conviction
  2. Appeal against Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Importation

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Drug Offences

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini Bin Zainutdin and othersHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 162SingaporeCited for the original grounds of decision convicting the co-accused.
Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini Bin Zainutdin and othersHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 76SingaporeCited for the original grounds of decision convicting the co-accused.
Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 907SingaporeCited for the two-step approach in determining whether there was inadequate legal assistance.
Zhou Tong and others v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 534SingaporeCited as an example of inadequate legal assistance due to counsel's failure to undertake legal research.
Law Society of Singapore v Leong Pek GanHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 1091SingaporeCited for the principle that an adverse inference may be drawn against a legal practitioner in the absence of contemporaneous records.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay KhiangHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 477SingaporeCited for the principle that the absence of attendance notes does not deprive the legal practitioner’s testimony of all credibility.
Prometheus Marine Pte Ltd v King, Ann Rita and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that the advocate is not merely the client’s unwitting or unthinking mouthpiece.
Juma’at bin Samad v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 327SingaporeCited for the principle that a decision or course taken by counsel which later appears mistaken is not a proper ground of appeal.
Nazeri bin Lajim v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 41SingaporeCited for the principle that it is always easy to comment on what could have been done better with the full benefit of hindsight and upon further reflection.
Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 557SingaporeCited for the principles when assessing the admissibility of a statement under s 258(3) of the CPC.
Poh Kay Keong and Ismail bin Abdul Rahman v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 74SingaporeCited for the consideration of what might be gained or lost as well as the degree of assurance when assessing inducement, threat or promise.
Tey Tsun Hang v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 1189SingaporeCited for the test for oppression was whether the accused’s mind and will was sapped such that he spoke when he otherwise would have remained silent.
Lim Thian Lai v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 319SingaporeCited for the part objective and part subjective test in determining voluntariness.
Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger JrHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 749SingaporeCited for the principle that for an adverse inference to be drawn against the Prosecution under s 116 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) for the failure to adduce evidence which could be produced, it must be shown that, inter alia, the non-adducing of evidence was done with an ulterior motive to hinder or hamper the Defence.
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Shafiq bin ShariffHigh CourtYes[2021] 5 SLR 1317SingaporeCited for the principle that to make out the offence of drug importation under s 7 of the MDA, there must be knowledge of the nature of the drugs – which refers to “knowledge of the actual controlled drug referred to in the charge”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
r 5(2)(k) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
r 5(2)(e) of the PCR

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 33B(2)(a)–(b) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 227(3) of the CPCSingapore
s 258(3) of the CPCSingapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 116 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug Importation
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Inadequate Legal Assistance
  • Inducement
  • Threat
  • Certificate of Substantive Assistance
  • Remittal
  • Criminal Procedure Code

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Importation
  • Inadequate Legal Assistance
  • Criminal Law
  • Singapore
  • Remittal
  • Misuse of Drugs Act

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act90
Inadequate Legal Assistance85
Criminal Procedure80
Criminal Law75
Statutory offences70
Sentencing65
Appeal60
Adducing fresh evidence55
Evidence Law50
Trials45
Legal Profession Act40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Drug Offences
  • Legal Ethics