Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 10 August 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGHC 163 |
Citation | [2012] SGHC 163 |
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) |
Published date | 22 August 2012 |
Plaintiff Counsel | S K Kumar (S K Kumar Law Practice LLP) |
Hearing Date | 08 May 2012 |
Date | 10 August 2012 |
Docket Number | Special Case No 1 of 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
- Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen and Another
- Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor
-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General
...the three organs of state, viz, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary (see Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 947 at [11]), but s 33B(4) curtails the judicial power of the judiciary to review the executive’s exercise of discretion. The final strand of the ......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...principles of natural law’. In aid of this proposition, the appellant cited the case of Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor[2012] 4 SLR 947 where Chan Sek Keong CJ stated that the separation of powers, as an unwritten principle, formed part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitu......
-
WALKING THE TIGHTROPE BETWEEN LEGALITY AND LEGITIMACY
...Review 421 at 427. 100Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General[2013] 4 SLR 1 at [79]. 101Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor[2012] 4 SLR 947 at [14]; see also Public Prosecutor v Taw Chang Kong[1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 at [89]. 102 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Repri......
-
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
...minimum punishments under s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed): see Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor[2012] SGHC 163 at [46]; Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor[2012] SGHC 164 at [17]. 77 Lim Keng Chia v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR(R) 1. The court, based ......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...[2017] 5 SLR 489 at [56]. 230 [1990] 1 SLR(R) 38 at [32]; Ravi s/o Madasamy v Attorney-General [2017] 5 SLR 489 at [57]. 231 [2012] 4 SLR 947 at [11]. 232 Ravi s/o Madasamy v Attorney-General [2017] 5 SLR 489 at [58]. 233 Kevin Y L Tan, “Into the Matrix: Interpreting the Westminster Model C......