Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 04 April 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGCA 9 |
Plaintiff Counsel | M Ravi (L F Violet Netto) |
Date | 04 April 2012 |
Year | 2011 |
Hearing Date | 17 January 2011 |
Subject Matter | Courts and Jurisdiction,Constitutional Law,Words and Phrases,Administrative Law |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 144 of 2010 |
Citation | [2011] SGCA 9 |
Defendant Counsel | Aedit Abdullah, Low Siew Ling and Shawn Ho Hsi Ming (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Published date | 15 April 2011 |
This is an appeal by Yong Vui Kong (“the Appellant”) against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in
The events leading to the filing of OS 740/2010 are as follows. On 14 November 2008, the Appellant was convicted of trafficking in 47.27g of diamorphine, an offence under s 5(1)(
After CCA 13/2008 was formally dismissed, the Appellant submitted a petition to the President on 11 August 2009 for clemency under Art 22P of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Singapore Constitution”). The President, acting on the advice of the Cabinet, declined on 20 November 2009 to grant clemency. On 30 November 2009, four days before his death sentence was due to be carried out, the Appellant, through his current counsel, Mr M Ravi (“Mr Ravi”), filed Criminal Motion No 41 of 2009 (“CM 41/2009”) seeking leave to pursue his appeal to the Court of Appeal (
At the hearing of CM 41/2009 on 8 December 2009, the Court of Appeal granted the Appellant leave to proceed with CCA 13/2008 on the ground that his earlier decision to withdraw that appeal was a nullity, given his mistaken belief as to his legal rights (see
On 10 May 2010, shortly before the Court of Appeal’s decision on CCA 13/2008 was released, Mr K Shanmugam, the Minister for Law and the then Second Minister for Home Affairs (“the Law Minister”), was reported in a local newspaper,
Death penalty, a trade-off
Saves ‘thousands of lives’ that may be ruined if drugs freely available: Minister 05:55 AM May 10, 2010
by Teo Xuanwei
SINGAPORE – The mandatory death penalty for serious drug offences here is a “trade-off” the Government makes to protect “thousands of lives” that may be ruined if drugs were freely available, Law Minister and Second Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said yesterday.
He was replying to a resident during a dialogue session at Siglap South Community Centre who asked if there would be changes on this policy, in light of the case of [the Appellant] .The 22-year-old successfully got a stay of execution from [the] High Court last December – despite the President rejecting his clemency plea – after being sentenced to hang for trafficking 47g of heroin.
He had told the court during his trial [that] he was unaware of the contents of the packages [he was carrying at the material time] as he was merely following the instructions of his boss in Johor Bahru when he drove into Singapore to deliver them.
But Mr Shanmugam said “
thousands of lives have been ruined due to the free availability of drugs ” in cities such as Sydney and New York. It also contributes to soaring crime rates, he added.“People assume you can have this safety and security without this framework of the law; that you can change it, and yet your safety and security will not be affected,” he said. “But there are always trade-offs. The difficulty the Government has sometimes in explaining this is that the trade-offs are not apparent. The damage to a large number of others is not obvious.
“You save one life here, but 10 other lives will be gone. What will your choice be?”
If [the Appellant] escapes the death penalty, drug barons will think the signal is that young and vulnerable traffickers will be spared and can be used as drug mules, argued Mr Shanmugam .“Then you’ll get 10 more. There’ll be an unstoppable stream of such people coming through as long as we say we won’t enforce our laws,” he said during his ministerial community visit to Joo Chiat.
…
[emphasis added]
In response to the Law Minister’s statements, Mr Ravi declared that those statements had caused the Appellant’s fate to be “‘poisoned’ with ‘biasedness’”.2 Mr Ravi’s comments were reported in the 15 May 2010 edition of
Convict’s last chance to escape death … President to hear clemency plea; lawyer takes issue with minister’s remarks 05:55 AM May 15, 2010
by Teo Xuanwei
SINGAPORE – His first clemency plea was unsuccessful and now convicted drug mule Yong Vui Kong’s [
viz , the Appellant’s] last chance to escape death lies in the President’s hands, after the highest court in the land dismissed his appeal.…
But [the Appellant]’s lawyer, Mr M Ravi, told reporters he plans to file for a judicial review before the Court of Appeal over Law Minister K Shanmugam’s remarks relating to his client’s case during a residents’ dialogue session last Sunday in Joo Chiat.
The resident had asked if [the Appellant]’s case would affect Singapore’s laws on the mandatory death penalty .Mr Shanmugam replied: “
[The Appellant] (who was sentenced to hang for trafficking in 47g of heroin) is young. But if we say, ‘We let you go’, what’s the signal we’re sending?
“We’re sending a signal to all drug barons out there: Just make sure you choose a victim who’s young or a mother of a young child and use them as the people to carry drugs into Singapore.”
With the sympathy generated after these people are caught, he added, there will be “a whole unstoppable stream of people coming through as long as we say we won’t enforce our laws”.
As [the Appellant]’s case was subjudice, or still under judgment, Mr Ravi said his client’s fate had been “poisoned” with “biasedness”.
In reply to media queries, the Ministry of Law said: “The Government has made clear its policy and philosophy on having the mandatory death penalty for a number of offences, such as drug trafficking.
“Minister Shanmugam, in response to a specific question … reiterated the policy and philosophy behind the death penalty and why Singapore adopted a tough stance.”
…
[emphasis added]
Following the above reports in
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corporation
... ... have gone further than the Colin Chan Test. In ... Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] ... 1 SLR 1 (“ Yong Vui Kong ”), ... the court was willing to fully ... ...
-
Wong Yuh Lan v PP
...[1999] 1 AC 54 (refd) Wong Yuh Lan, Lim Yong Nam, Lim Kow Seng & Hia Soo Gan Benson, Re [2012] SGDC 34 (refd) Yong Vui Kong v PP [2012] 2 SLR 872 (folld) Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) s 417 Extradition Act 1968 (Act 14 of 1968) Extradition Act (Cap 103, 2000 Rev Ed) ss 2 (1)......
- Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen and Another
-
Ramalingam Ravinthran v AG
... ... appeal to the final appellate court. This was the opinion of this court in ... Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2010] ... 2 SLR 192 (“ Yong Vui Kong ... (Jurisdiction) ”) ... ...
-
Indexes
...Public Prosecutor [2010] 3 SLR489 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2012] 2 SLR872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265ZZ v Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment (Case C–300/11) 4 June......
-
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
...Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor[2012] 2 SLR 1012; Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General[2011] 2 SLR 1189; Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] 2 SLR 872. 24[2012] 2 SLR 25 Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed. 26 Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint) states: “All per......
-
LOOKING BEYOND PROSPECTIVE GUIDANCE
...34 at col 1382 (Chua Sian Chin, Minister for Home Affairs and Education). 35 See para 32 below. 36 See Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] 2 SLR 872 at [31]. 37Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] 2 SLR 872 at [31]. 38Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] 2 SLR 872 at [31]. 39 In S......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...that prosecutorial discretion had been based on irrelevant considerations. Similarly, it was argued in Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] 2 SLR 872 that the Public Prosecutor had abused his prosecutorial discretion in so far as he had discontinued prosecution against one Chia Choon Len......