Dineshkumar Sambusivam v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Outcome
Application dismissed“I dismiss the Application summarily, without it being set down for an oral hearing, under s 394H(7) of the CPC.”
Source: [2026] SGCA 37, Court of Appeal, decided 20 August 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 17–23 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kannan Ramesh |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Outcome | Application dismissed |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Joelle Loy, Ronnie Ang, Wong Woon Kwong |
Source: [2026] SGCA 37, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Dineshkumar Sambusivam v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 37 was decided by Kannan Ramesh JAD in the Court of Appeal on 20 August 2026, in Criminal Motion No 28 of 2026. The Applicant, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment and scheduled for execution on 21 August 2026, applied on 17 August 2026 under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code for permission to make a review application against the Court of Appeal's decision in CA/CCA 19/2023, which upheld his conviction for trafficking in not less than 37.95g of diamorphine and the mandatory sentence of death. The issue was whether he had shown sufficient material under s 394J(3). The court held that s 394J(3)(a) was not satisfied and dismissed the application summarily under s 394H(7).
[2026] SGCA 37 explained
Dineshkumar Sambusivam v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 37) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 20 August 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGCA 37 about?
Dineshkumar Sambusivam v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 37) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Stay of execution”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 37 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 37 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGCA 5 and [2023] SGHC 235. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Court of Appeal considered an application by Mr Dineshkumar Sambusivam, a prisoner scheduled for execution on 21 August 2026, for permission under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code to make a review application against his conviction for trafficking in not less than 37.95g of diamorphine and the mandatory death sentence. His claims concerned the chain of custody of the drug exhibits and the recording of a statement. The court held that he had not raised sufficient new material and dismissed the application summarily.
What was decided in Dineshkumar Sambusivam v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 37?
Kannan Ramesh JAD dismissed the Applicant's application for permission to make a review application against his conviction and death sentence, holding that he had not satisfied s 394J(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code because he raised no sufficient new material.
Why did the Court of Appeal dismiss the review application in [2026] SGCA 37?
The court found the Applicant was putting a new spin on old evidence already before the trial judge, including the chain of custody of the drug exhibits. His counsel had confirmed at trial that chain of custody was not challenged.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (5)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 37)