Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 10 August 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGHC 163 |
Citation | [2012] SGHC 163 |
Docket Number | Special Case No 1 of 2012 |
Published date | 22 August 2012 |
Plaintiff Counsel | S K Kumar (S K Kumar Law Practice LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Paul Ong Min-Tse as amicus curiae.,Tan Ken Hwee, Andre Jumabhoy, Kwek Chin Yong, Seraphina Fong and Jeremy Yeo Shenglong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Date | 10 August 2012 |
Hearing Date | 08 May 2012 |
Subject Matter | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Legislature,Judicial power,Statutory offences,Criminal Law,Constitutional Law,Misuse of Drugs Act,Executive,Sentencing,Equal protection of the law |
This Special Case (
33A. Punishment for repeat consumption of specified drugs —( 1) Where a person who has not less than —- 2 previous admissions;
- 2 previous convictions for consumption of a specified drug under section 8(
b );- 2 previous convictions for an offence of failure to provide a urine specimen under section 31(2);
- one previous admission and one previous conviction for consumption of a specified drug under section 8(
b );- one previous admission and one previous conviction for an offence of failure to provide a urine specimen under section 31(2); or
- one previous conviction for consumption of a specified drug under section 8(
b ) and one previous conviction for an offence of failure to provide a urine specimen under section 31(2),is convicted of an offence under section 8(
b ) for consumption of a specified drug or an offence of failure to provide a urine specimen under section 31(2), he shall on conviction be punished with —- imprisonment for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 7 years; and
- not less than 3 strokes and not more than 6 strokes of the cane.
…
Section 33A(5)(
The specific provisions in s 33A which are in issue in this Special Case are ss 33A(1)(
The stated questions in this Special Case and Special Case No 2 of 2012 raise a fundamental issue of constitutional law in the context of the principle of separation of powers as to the role of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary in the punishment of offenders under our criminal justice system. Specifically, the issue in this Special Case is whether the impugned s 33A MDA provisions constitute an impermissible legislative intrusion into the judicial power and accordingly violate the principle of separation of powers embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Singapore Constitution”). The stated question in this Special Case also raises additional issues as to whether the impugned s 33A MDA provisions violate Arts 9 and/or 12 of the Singapore Constitution. I should point out at this juncture that although ss 33A(1)(
The Petitioner was charged on 1 April 2011 with a number of offences under the MDA, including one count of consumption of morphine under s 8(
Does s 33A(1)(a), (d) and/or (e) of the [MDA] violate the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore in requiring the court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence as prescribed thereunder, with specific reference to “admissions” as defined in s 33A(5)(c) of the MDA?
Although the Stated Question was asked in the context of the principle of separation of powers, the Petitioner also argued, in the course of his submissions, that the impugned s 33A MDA provisions (in particular, s 33A(1)(
The Petitioner’s case that s 33A(1)(
The Prosecution’s arguments in response to the Petitioner’s arguments may be summarised as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak and Others and other appeals
-
PP v Hue an Li
...... This was an appeal against sentence brought by the Public Prosecutor (“the appellant”). The respondent, Hue An Li ... that is within the purview of Parliament (see Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 94 at ......
-
Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter
...provisions in s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”). In Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 947 (“Special Case No 1”), Mr Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu (“the 1st Applicant”) had challenged the constitutionality of s 33A(1)(a), (d), and (e) of......
-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
...of the parties concerned for the purposes of governing their relationship for the future”: Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 947 (“Faizal”) (at [27]). What follows from this is that, at its core, the judicial process requires clear legal standards against which fact......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...at [11]. 103 Koh Rong Gui v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 259 at [40]. 104 Koh Rong Gui v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 259 at [41]. 105 [2012] 4 SLR 947 at [45]. 106 Koh Rong Gui v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 259 at [42]. 107 Koh Rong Gui v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 259 at [43]. 108 ......