Mohammad Shaffy Bin Hassan v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 24–30 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Ang Cheng Hock, Steven Chong, Tay Yong Kwang |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law |
| Counsel | Abbots Chambers LLC, Attorney-General's Chambers, Eugene Thuraisingam Asia LLC, Anandan Bala, Ariffin Iskandar Sha bin Ali Akbar, Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Hamza Malik, Seraphine Loh Tian Hui, Sunil Nair, Vishnu Menon |
Source: [2026] SGCA 38, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (10)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Mohammad Shaffy bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 38 was decided by the Court of Appeal (Tay Yong Kwang JCA, Steven Chong JCA and Ang Cheng Hock JCA) on 25 August 2026, after a hearing on 2 July 2026. The appellant had been convicted of possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. He was arrested on 21 June 2018, and about 16.34g of drugs were seized. On appeal he ran a defence inconsistent with his trial defence, claiming he intended to traffic only two packets. The issues were intention to traffic the third packet, the chain of custody and courier status under s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
[2026] SGCA 38 explained
Mohammad Shaffy Bin Hassan v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 38) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 25 August 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Law. 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 38 about?
Mohammad Shaffy Bin Hassan v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 38) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act”, 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 38 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), 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 38 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGCA 9. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Mohammad Shaffy bin Hassan against his conviction for possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the mandatory death penalty imposed. He argued that he intended to traffic only two of three packets, having collected the third by mistake. The court held that he failed to show the trial judge's finding that he intended to traffic the third packet was plainly wrong, and upheld the chain of custody and the finding that he was not a courier.
What was Mohammad Shaffy bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 38 about?
An appeal against a conviction for possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. The appellant said he collected a third packet by mistake and intended to traffic only two. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Why did the Court of Appeal dismiss the appeal in [2026] SGCA 38?
The court held the appellant had not shown that the finding he intended to traffic the third packet was plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence. It also upheld the chain of custody and found he was not a courier.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (19)
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 38)