Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA |
Judgment Date | 30 May 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGCA 46 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 20 of 2022 |
Published date | 02 June 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Hearing Date | 28 April 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Yang Ziliang and Pavithra Ramkumar (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | The respondent in person. |
Citation | [2022] SGCA 46 |
When a prisoner has been sentenced to the death penalty and is to be deprived of his life, he does not necessarily lose his other legal rights. Among other things, the exercise of discretion by the State in scheduling his execution is subject to legal limits, including the usual principles of judicial review and the fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) (the “Constitution”).
Mr Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah (the “respondent”) was convicted and sentenced in relation to a capital offence. Subsequently a date for his execution was fixed. This date fixed, however, was a date that fell prior to the hearing of a civil matter in which he was one of 13 plaintiffs. The question then was what role due process ought to play in the circumstances and whether, by such scheduling, he was being subjected to unequal treatment when compared with other equally situated prisoners. The General Division of the High Court judge (the “Judge”) found that there was a
The respondent was tried and convicted on a capital offence of trafficking in not less than 44.96g of diamorphine, under s 5(1)(
In addition to these criminal proceedings, the respondent filed civil applications in HC/OS 111/2020 (“OS 111”) and HC/OS 181/2020 (“OS 181”) on 28 January 2020 and 10 February 2020, respectively. In OS 111, the respondent applied for a stay of execution of his death sentence, pending an investigation into allegations concerning the method of execution adopted by the Singapore Prison Service (“SPS”). In OS 181, the respondent applied for a declaration that a statement made by a Deputy Public Prosecutor at a pre-trial conference towards his lawyer violated his right to a fair trial. OS 111 and OS 181 were dismissed by the High Court on 13 February 2020. The respondent’s appeals against the decisions in both cases were dismissed by this court on 13 August 2020 (see
Prior to the substantive hearing of the appeals in
Subsequently, on 2 July 2021, the respondent was one of 13 plaintiffs in HC/OS 664/2021 (“OS 664”), in which leave to commence judicial review was sought under O 53 rr 1 and 7 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (the “2014 Rules”). This was to apply for,
Further, on 1 October 2020, the respondent and various other prisoners who had been sentenced to the death penalty commenced HC/OS 975/2020 (“OS 975”) against the Attorney-General and the Superintendent of Changi Prison (Institution A1). They sought pre-action discovery and leave to serve pre-action interrogatories in relation to their claims concerning the unauthorised disclosure of their correspondence. OS 975 was dismissed by the judge in the General Division of the High Court on 16 March 2021, who held that the applicants were precluded from applying for pre-action disclosures against the Government, and that the pre-action disclosures sought were neither necessary nor relevant (see
On 25 February 2022, the same 13 plaintiffs in OS 664 (which included the respondent) filed HC/OS 188/2022 (“OS 188”) under O 15 r 16 of the 2014 Rules, seeking substantially the same reliefs sought in OS 664. At the time of the present appeal, OS 188 remained pending before the court, having been fixed for hearing on 20 May 2022 at a pre-trial conference on 20 April 2022. It was also clear by 6 April 2022, when another pre-trial conference for OS 188 was held, that dates in May 2022 were being considered for the fixing of the hearing of OS 188.
Separately, the President’s order for the respondent’s execution under s 313(
The respondent filed HC/OA 67/2022 (“OA 67”) on 27 April 2022, seeking leave under O 53 r 1 of the 2014 Rules to commence judicial review proceedings against the Attorney-General in relation to the scheduling of his execution for 29 April 2022. He sought the following reliefs: (a) a declaration that the Notice was in breach of the respondent’s rights under Arts 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution as OS 188 was pending; and (b) a prohibiting order or stay of execution of the respondent’s sentence of death, pending the resolution of OS 188. It was contended that the “effect of the [d]eclaratory orders sought in OS 188” would render his conviction and sentence unlawful and in breach of his rights under Arts 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution.
The decision belowIn an oral judgment delivered on 28 April 2022 (the “Judgment”), the Judge observed that OA 67 erroneously relied on O 53 r 1 of the 2014 Rules instead of O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2021 (the “2021 Rules”) (which came into force on 1 April 2022). However, the application substantively complied with the requirements of O 24 r 5(3) of the 2021 Rules in that an originating application, statement and supporting affidavit had been filed. The Judge observed that the respondent was acting in person and, pursuant to O 3 r 2(4) of the 2021 Rules, proceeded to deal with the substance of the application.
As stated by the Judge, the requirements for leave to commence judicial review proceedings are that: (a) the subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Han Hui Hui v AG
...1 SLR 1347, which involved the loss of individual freedom: at [182] and [183]. Case(s) referred to AG v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah [2022] SGCA 46 (refd) Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223 (refd) Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs [2006] 1 SLR......
-
Kottakki Srinivas Patnaik v Attorney-General
...as set out in Xu Yuan Chen v Attorney-General [2022] 2 SLR 1131 (“Xu Yuan Chen”) at [1]; Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah [2022] SGCA 46 (“Datchinamurthy”) at [29]–[30]; Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2021] 1 SLR 809 (“Syed Suhail”) at [61]–[62]; and Muhammad Ridz......
-
Nazeri bin Lajim v Attorney-General
...will be treated alike” (see Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 at [54]; Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy s/l Kataiah [2022] SGCA 46 at [29]). In assessing whether executive action has breached Art 12(1), the applicant must first discharge his evidential burden of showin......
-
Xu Yuan Chen (alias Terry Xu) v Attorney-General
...regardless of the facts and circumstances of each case. As this court recently explained in Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah [2022] SGCA 46 (“Datchinamurthy”) at [29], the concept of equality under Art 12(1) does not mean that all persons are to be treated equally, but simply t......