Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 29 March 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGCA 26 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 and Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 |
Published date | 07 April 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Hearing Date | 01 March 2022,09 November 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | L F Violet Netto (L F Violet Netto) |
Defendant Counsel | Wong Woon Kwong, Tan Wee Hao, Wong Li Ru, Andre Chong and Janice See (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Citation | [2022] SGCA 26 |
The appellant in these proceedings, Mr Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam, has been embroiled in legal proceedings since his arrest for importing a substantial quantity of diamorphine into Singapore nearly 13 years ago. The history of the various proceedings is outlined at [4]–[7] below. This judgment is issued in respect of two sets of proceedings that came before us: Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 (“CA 61”), which was the appellant’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of his application in Originating Summons No 1109 of 2021 (“OS 1109”) for leave to commence judicial review proceedings in respect of his impending execution; and Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 (“CM 30”), which was the appellant’s motion for him to be assessed by an independent panel of psychiatrists and for a stay of execution of his sentence in the meantime. The central argument that underlies both these matters concerns an assertion that pertains to the appellant’s mental faculties: it is said that because of an alleged deterioration in the appellant’s mental faculties since the time of his offence, the sentence of death cannot be allowed to be carried out. It is important to note that the assertion does not concern the appellant’s mental faculties at the time of the offence, nearly 13 years ago. Instead, it pertains to his alleged mental faculties
We dismiss both CA 61 and CM 30. In our judgment, these proceedings constitute a blatant and egregious abuse of the court’s processes. They have been conducted with the seeming aim of unjustifiably delaying the carrying into effect of the sentence imposed on the appellant; and the case mounted by the appellant’s counsel is baseless and without merit, both as a matter of fact and of law.
Just a few months ago, in
The appellant was charged under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”) with importing not less than 42.72g of diamorphine on 22 April 2009. He was convicted after trial and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty, and his conviction and sentence was upheld by this court on appeal: see
In 2015, the appellant filed Criminal Motion No 16 of 2015 (“CM 16”) and Originating Summons No 272 of 2015 (“OS 272”). In CM 16, he applied for re-sentencing and sought to be sentenced to life imprisonment instead, under s 33B(1)(
The appeals against the decisions in
The appellant then petitioned the President of the Republic of Singapore for clemency, but his application was rejected.1 The execution of the appellant was eventually scheduled for 10 November 2021. The appellant was notified of this on 27 October 2021.2
The present applicationsWe now trace the tortuous path by which CA 61 and CM 30 have come before us.
On 2 November 2021, the appellant, through his then counsel on record Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy (“Mr Ravi”), filed OS 1109, seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings against his impending execution. The sole factual basis furnished for this application was an affidavit of Mr Ravi deposing to, among other things, his “firm belief” as to the appellant’s mental age. Notwithstanding the supposed firmness of his belief, Mr Ravi acknowledged that he did not have the necessary medical expertise to form a view on the question of the appellant’s mental age.3
OS 1109 was heard on 8 November 2021. Notably,
At the conclusion of the hearing, the High Court dismissed OS 1109. The appellant, through his counsel Mr Ravi, filed CA 61 on the very same day to appeal against the High Court’s decision in OS 1109.
We digress to note that CM 30 was filed
In CM 30, Mr Navinkumar’s evidence
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah
...a sentence imposed on an offender (see the decision of this court in Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter [2022] SGCA 26 at [65]). Suffice it to state that such actions (which was not the situation here) would not provide any basis for a stay of execution, an......
-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter
...61 of 2021 (“CA 61”) and Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 (“CM 30”) in Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter [2022] SGCA 26 (“the Judgment”). In the Judgment at [70], the CA gave leave to the parties to raise by notice in writing any question of costs within seve......
-
Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another
...not have a valid PC, ostensibly to provide “technical support”. In Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter [2022] SGCA 26 we observed as follows at [21]–[22]: 21 The hearing on 1 March 2022 was scheduled to start at 10.00am. Although the appellant and the Prosec......
-
Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public Prosecutor
...JCA, Ang JAD and Chao SJ dismissed CA 61/2021 and CM 30/2021 (see Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter [2022] SGCA 26 (“Nagaenthran (Abuse of Process)”). Our As a preliminary point, we agree with the respondent’s submission that the first applicant has no sta......