Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA |
Judgment Date | 26 April 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGCA 37 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Criminal Motion No 12 of 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Published date | 30 April 2022 |
Hearing Date | 26 April 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | The first and second applicants (in person) |
Defendant Counsel | Wong Woon Kwong, Tan Wee Hao and Andre Chong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Citation | [2022] SGCA 37 |
The first applicant, Mdm Panchalai a/p Supermaniam, in Criminal Motion No 12 of 2022 (“CM 12/2022”) is the second applicant’s mother. The second applicant, Mr Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam, is a prisoner facing capital punishment who has exhausted his rights of appeal and almost every other means of recourse under the law. The numerous proceedings spanning some 11 years are detailed below at [5]–[13].
The second applicant was scheduled to be executed on 27 April 2022 for the second time. Just two days before the scheduled execution, the applicants filed CM 12/2022 seeking a stay of his execution pending the filing and disposal of certain applications which the applicants intend to file. They intend to file applications to set aside the decisions in Criminal Appeal No 50 of 2017 (“CCA 50/2017”), Civil Appeal No 98 of 2018 (“CA 98/2018”), Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 (“CA 61/2021”) and Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 (“CM 30/2021”) (referred to collectively as “the CA Decisions”) on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. In support of their application, the applicants rely on the primary fact that the presiding Judge of the
In essence, the applicants’ case is that Menon CJ was the AG who had control, supervision and authority over the second applicant’s prosecution (which includes his conviction and appeal against conviction and sentence), and this was “incompatible” with his judicial function in hearing the CA Decisions. This, in turn, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Consequently, the second applicant’s right to a fair trial pursuant to Art 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) (the “Constitution”) has been “fundamentally breached” and the CA Decisions are “unconstitutional, unlawful and null and void”. They argue that the Court of Appeal was “bound by law” to have reconstituted the
Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, we find CM 12/2022 to be devoid of merit and accordingly dismiss it. The present application, which was filed just two days before the scheduled execution, appears to be a calculated attempt to diminish the finality of the judicial process and disrupt the second applicant’s execution. As we have repeatedly reiterated, “no court in the world would allow an applicant to prolong matters
On 22 November 2010, the second applicant was convicted under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) for importing not less than 42.72g of diamorphine into Singapore. He was sentenced to suffer death by the High Court (see
On 24 February 2015, the second applicant filed Criminal Motion No 16 of 2015 (“CM 16/2015”) under s 33B of the MDA for the death sentence imposed to be substituted with a term of life imprisonment. On 14 September 2017, the High Court dismissed CM 16/2015 (see
On 27 March 2015, the second applicant filed Originating Summons No 272 of 2015 (“OS 272/2015”) seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Public Prosecutor’s decision not to grant the certificate under s 33B(2)(
On 8 January 2016, the second applicant filed Criminal Motion No 2 of 2016 (“CM 2/2016”) to the Court of Appeal seeking among other things, a declaration that s 33B of the MDA is unconstitutional and contrary to the rule of law. It is critical to note that the precise matter now alleged in the present CM 12/2022 (
On 2 December 2016, the Court of Appeal comprising Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA and Phang JA dismissed CM 2/2016 (see
Given that the second applicant had no objections to Menon CJ sitting on the
The second applicant subsequently petitioned the President of the Republic of Singapore for clemency but his application was rejected. His execution was scheduled for the first time on 10 November 2021. However, on 2 November 2011, the second applicant filed Originating Summons No 1109 of 2021 (“OS 1109/2021”) for judicial review against his impending execution. This was dismissed by the High Court on 8 November 2021. On the same day, the second applicant filed an appeal, CA 61/2021, against the High Court’s dismissal of OS 1109/2021 and a criminal motion, CM 30/2021, seeking orders for the second applicant to be assessed by an independent panel of psychiatrists and for a stay of execution until all proceedings were concluded. CA 61/2021 and CM 30/2021 was scheduled for hearing on 9 November 2021 by the Court of Appeal comprising Phang JCA, Prakash JCA and Kannan Ramesh J. As the second applicant tested positive for COVID-19, the Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings and issued a stay of execution until the proceedings were concluded.
On 9 November 2021, the second applicant filed Criminal Motion No 31 of 2021 (“CM 31/2021”) under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“the 2012 CPC”) for leave to bring a review application under s 394I of the 2012 CPC to reopen the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in CCA 50/2017. On 23 November 2021, Phang JCA granted leave for the second applicant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah
...Prosecutor [2021] 5 SLR 927 at [13] and the recent decision of this court in Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 37 at [28]). The respondent must therefore be taken to have exhausted his rights of appeal and review of his conviction and sentence with the aw......