Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 14 September 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGHC 222 |
Citation | [2017] SGHC 222 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 04 June 2019 |
Docket Number | Criminal Motion No 16 of 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Lau Wing Yum and Tan Wee Hao (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Discretion of court not to impose sentence of death when offender was suffering from an abnormality of mind,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Mentally disordered offenders |
Hearing Date | 11 April 2017,02 June 2017 |
This judgment deals with Criminal Motion No 16 of 2015, which is an application by Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam (“the applicant”) to be re-sentenced to life imprisonment under s 33B(1)(
This re-sentencing application was heard over a single day on 11 April 2017. The parties each led evidence from their respective psychiatric experts: the applicant led evidence from Dr Ung Eng Khean (“Dr Ung”), a psychiatrist from Adam Road Medical Centre; the respondent led evidence from Dr Koh Wun Wu Kenneth Gerald (“Dr Koh”), a senior consultant from the Department of General and Forensic Psychiatry at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”). As will be evident from my analysis below, the conflicting expert opinions of Dr Ung and Dr Koh on the mental condition of the applicant at the time of the offence constitute the very crux of the dispute in these proceedings.
At the close of proceedings, I reserved judgment.
Procedural history The applicant had been charged under s 7 of the MDA for importing not less than 42.72g of diamorphine on 22 April 2009. On 22 November 2010, I found the applicant guilty following a trial, and sentenced him to death as mandated by s 33 read with the Second Schedule to the MDA:
The applicant’s execution was stayed in the midst of the government’s review of the mandatory death penalty regarding drug offences. On 14 November 2012, the Singapore Parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 30 of 2012) (“the Amendment Act”). The Amendment Act introduced s 33B of the MDA, which confers upon the court the discretion to sentence an offender convicted of a capital drug charge to life imprisonment if:
On 10 December 2014, the Prosecution informed the court and the then-counsel for the applicant that the Public Prosecutor would
The applicant also commenced various other applications. On 27 March 2015, the applicant commenced Originating Summons No 272 of 2015, seeking judicial review of the Public Prosecutor’s decision not to grant the certificate (“the judicial review application”). The proceedings for the judicial review application have been adjourned pending the outcome of the present re-sentencing application. On 8 January 2016, the applicant filed Criminal Motion No 2 of 2016 seeking,
During the hearing for the re-sentencing application on 11 April 2017, the parties agreed to proceed on the basis that the applicant was seeking to be re-sentenced to life imprisonment under the abnormality of mind provision. The applicant has since, with my leave, amended the Notice of Motion on 7 August 2017 to update the grounds of the re-sentencing application to reflect this position.
Background facts The facts surrounding the offence have previously been compendiously summarised by the Court of Appeal when the Trial Judgment went on appeal. I thus gratefully adopt the facts as restated in the CA Decision and set out the portions that are pertinent to the present analysis as follows (the CA Decision at [5]–[15]):
…
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v AG
...v AG [2018] SGHC 112 (refd) Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingan v PP [2011] 4 SLR 1156, CA (refd) Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v PP [2017] SGHC 222 (refd) Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v PP [2019] 2 SLR 216, CA (refd) PP v ASR [2019] 1 SLR 941 (refd) PP v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan [2018] 1......
-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General
...the same. On 14 September 2017, I dismissed the re-sentencing application: see Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 222 (“Nagaenthran (Re-sentencing)”). On 16 October 2017, the applicant filed a notice of its intention to refer to the affidavit of Dr Ung Eng Khean ......
-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter
...33B(2)(b) of the MDA. Both CM 16 and OS 272 were dismissed by a High Court judge: see Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 222 (“Nagaenthran (CM)”) and Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General [2018] SGHC 112 (“Nagaenthran (Judicial Review)”). The High Cou......
-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
...was not suffering from an abnormality of mind within the meaning of s 33B(3)(b): see Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 222 (“Nagaenthran (Criminal Motion)”). Criminal Appeal No 50 of 2017 (“CCA 50”) is the appellant’s appeal against the dismissal of CM 16. Separ......