[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: The Court of Appeals on Tuesday (September 22) called for further submissions in the case of a convicted drug trafficker who was due to be hanged last Friday, and suspended the execution of his death sentence until further notice.
During the hearing, defense attorney M Ravi made allegations of a violation of attorney-client privilege, saying that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) had delivered private letters from his client to the Attorney General’s Office (AGC).
The “violation” was raised by the Community Action Network of the human rights coalition in a statement Monday.
Mr. Ravi also claimed that there was bias as his client was in line to be hanged before foreigners due to reasons related to COVID-19.
In addition, it alleged that “essentially, no pardons have been granted” in 22 years, suggesting that it was “superficially considered.”
Assistant Attorney General Francis Ng criticized the allegations against the president, saying they were “of the most serious and scandalous nature” that were used to denigrate the head of state. He called Mr. Ravi’s requests “frivolous and tiresome.”
After hearing arguments from both parties, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, along with Appellate Judges Judith Prakash and Andrew Phang, ordered the parties to present submissions on three points.
First, if a prisoner awaiting capital punishment has a legitimate expectation that the date on which his punishment is carried out will not result in different treatment from other prisoners in a similar situation.
Second, does the answer to the first question differ if prisoners who are Singaporean are treated differently from those who are not citizens? And third, whether there are considerations regarding the second question that could justify differential treatment. This is in relation to Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law to all people.
THE CASE
Singaporean Syed Suhail Syed Zin, 44, was arrested in 2011 and convicted in December 2015 on a capital charge for possessing at least 38.8 g of diamorphine or heroin for trafficking.
The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in October 2018.
He was to be hanged on September 18, but the execution was suspended at the last minute after his lawyer intervened.
Mr. Ravi requested a review of the court’s decision in 2018 to uphold Syed’s conviction and sentence for two reasons: that the question of whether Syed suffered from a mental abnormality had not been sufficiently investigated before, and that the previous trial attorney de Syed had not used the available data. evidence to show that Syed had received an inheritance from his uncle. This would have refuted the prosecution’s argument that Syed could not have purchased all the drugs for his own use.
Syed’s defense at trial and on previous appeal had been that the drugs were for his own use, an argument previously rejected by the court.
Syed interrupted the proceedings on Tuesday and said: “You speak of justice. What I really want, me and the 50-year-old guys on the gallows, what we want is mercy. We believe that we can make a difference, if we get a chance.”
Chief Justice Menon told him that the court would hire his attorney in his place.
THE LETTERS READ BY AGC
Ravi began his arguments Tuesday with a separate point from his actual appeal, saying that he wanted the entire AGC team to be disqualified, as he had read privileged communications from Syed to his then-lawyer and uncle.
The letters had allegedly been sent to AGC by the prison, according to Community Action Network, which called it a violation that is “deeply alarming.”
In response, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Francis Ng said the AGC “took possession of the letters” in the course of preparing the documents related to the firing of Syed’s then-attorney, Ramesh Tiwary.
“The letters were not used in AGC’s response,” lead attorney Ng said, adding that he personally had not seen any of the letters.
Mr. Ravi said senior attorney Ng should be disqualified, arguing that a new attorney not associated with AGC be appointed to the case “out of the appearance of fairness.”
Judge Phang repeatedly detained Mr. Ravi, who spoke about him several times at the hearing, telling him that he could not make “broad and radical statements” without foundation.
He asked Mr. Ravi to explain why his client had been harmed by reading the letters, to which Mr. Ravi said was not the content itself, but the fact that the documents were privileged and confidential. .
At one point, the Chief Justice stepped in and told Ravi not to interrupt or be rude, reminding him to observe decorum.
Judge Phang intervened as Mr. Ravi read a ruling in the Gobi Avedian and Datchinamurthy Kataiah case, telling him that he was the one who wrote that ruling.
Mr. Ravi cited part of the judgment, saying that if AGC wanted to obtain copies of letters belonging to a prisoner, the proper procedure would have been to obtain the prisoner’s consent or a court order.
Judge Phang instead pointed this out to another part of his judgment, which read: “By virtue of the AGC’s role as legal adviser to the SPS, you may have access to information that other attorneys could not, and therefore must have. due precaution to avoid the possibility of seeking an undue advantage. “
In the case cited, it was admitted that it was an oversight and not an attempt by AGC to seek an advantage in the process.
“Therefore, if you want to apply (this case), you must show what prejudice and what advantage the prosecution obtained on the facts of this case, because not all infractions will result in an advantage,” Judge Phang said. .
He had difficulty with Mr. Ravi’s arguments, telling him that they “did not make any logical sense” and that they were inconsistent.
CLEMENCY IN CASES OF DEATH PENALTY AND COVID-19
Mr. Ravi then discussed clemency and death penalties at length, claiming that in 22 years, prisoners sentenced to death have not been granted clemency, suggesting that clemency was not properly considered.
In response, Chief Justice Menon said his “eloquent choice of words is not going to make up for the lack of principle,” while Justice Phang said that the fact that clemency was not granted did not mean that it was not properly considered. .
He gave a hypothetical example where no one received first-class honors from law school in 100 years.
“Does it mean that the rating is unfair? It’s just that the candidates weren’t good enough. Of course, the candidates don’t like it. Aren’t they smart enough? There may be unhappiness. You certainly have a right to your opinions. . He’s not happy. But that’s not the point. The point is due process. “
Mr. Ravi responded that a law test cannot be compared to a man’s life.
It also alleged that due to COVID-19, Singaporean prisoners could be executed before foreign prisoners, as foreign prisoners do not have access to their family members and there may be problems repatriation of their remains to their families abroad.
AGC SLAMS THE LAWYER’S CASE
Lead counsel Ng asserted in his written arguments that SPS carries out the execution of sentences in accordance with a court order issued with the seal of the Supreme Court.
This is after the court receives a presidential order containing the details of the time and place for the sentence to be executed, which in turn is rendered by the president after receiving advice from the Cabinet.
Senior attorney Ng added that an execution is “a solemn and natural consequence of the law running its course.” He cited a judgment of the Court of Appeal that said that a criminal sentenced to death “has indeed already been deprived of his life by law due to this conviction for a capital crime” and that, in the absence of clemency, “his life will be lost as decreed by law “.
He said that all of Mr. Ravi’s arguments, old and new, “are legally incoherent, not supported by any evidence, and have a blunderbuss flavor to try to ask permission using illogical arguments.”
He said that this is precisely the type of “hopeless or unfounded case” that the Rules of the Court intended to filter.
“While the appellant faces the harshest punishment under Singapore law, this is not carte blanche for him and his attorney to come up with all kinds of unsubstantiated claims challenging the conduct of public officials and to use judicial review as a tool to stop the flow of justice, “said lead attorney Ng.
CNA has contacted SPS and AGC for more information.
