← All Authorities
Singapore elementssubstantive assistance

Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v PP

Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Public Prosecutor [2014] SGCA 32; [2014] 3 SLR 721 (the certificate-of-substantive-assistance challenge is the separate decision Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General [2015] SGCA 53)
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2014
StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

To establish trafficking by possession for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) MDA, the Prosecution must prove possession of the controlled drug (provable, presumed under s 18(1), or deemed under s 18(4)), knowledge of its nature (presumable under s 18(2)), and that possession was for an unauthorised purpose of trafficking; and the Public Prosecutor's discretion to issue a certificate of substantive assistance under s 33B is reviewable only for bad faith, malice or unconstitutionality.

Area of Law

criminal

Related Cases

Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 8
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General [2022] SGCA 26
Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and other appeals [2022] SGCA 52

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v PP and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali ...