[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The Court of Appeals on Tuesday (September 22) called for further submissions in the case of a convicted drug trafficker, based on allegations of differential treatment and violation of attorney-client privilege.
Syed Suhail Syed Zin, 44, also received a stay of execution from the Singapore High Court, as he was originally scheduled to be executed last Friday.
He had previously applied to the High Court for authorization to initiate judicial review proceedings against the Singapore Prison Service (SPS), to stay the execution of his sentence.
The lawsuit was dismissed by Judge See Kee Oon last Thursday and the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on Tuesday. The parties have been ordered to file further submissions and will return to the Court of Appeals on a date to be set after October 6.
Syed Suhail was arrested in 2011 and convicted in December 2015 on a capital charge of possession of at least 38.8 grams of diamorphine or heroin for trafficking. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in October 2018.
Complaints of differential treatment in judicial execution
During Tuesday’s hearing, defense attorney M Ravi alleged that differential treatment has been applied between foreigners and Singaporeans in the scheduling of Syed Suhail’s judicial execution.
He claimed that executions are not carried out in the same order as death sentences were handed down, and said his client was scheduled to be hanged earlier than those who were sentenced before him.
He argued that this violates Syed Suhail’s constitutional right to equal treatment under Article 12, as differential treatment has been applied between foreigners and Singaporeans in the scheduling of his judicial execution.
In response, the Interior Ministry (MHA) said in a press release Tuesday that it denies all allegations of discrimination or irregularity in the scheduling of judicial executions.
“All prisoners sentenced to capital punishment are granted due process in accordance with the law. A judicial execution will only be scheduled after an inmate has exhausted all legal channels of appeal and clemency, regardless of whether the prisoner is a Singaporean or a foreigner, ”the ministry said.
MHA added that it will address the “unfounded” allegations comprehensively before the next hearing date.
During the Court of Appeal hearing, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Francis Ng criticized the accusations, saying they were “of the most serious and scandalous nature” that were used to denigrate the head of state. He also called Ravi’s apps “frivolous and vexatious.”
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, if there are considerations regarding the second question that can justify differential treatment. This is in relation to article 12, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law for all people.
Allegation of violation of attorney-client privilege
The Court of Appeal also heard Ravi’s allegations of a violation of attorney-client privilege, and the attorney said the SPS had delivered private letters from his client to the Attorney General’s Office (AGC) in 2018. He wanted the entire AGC team be disqualified, as he had read privileged communications from Syed to his then lawyer and his uncle.
The alleged violation was raised on Monday by the human rights coalition Community Action Network, which called it “deeply alarming.”
In response, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Ng said that the AGC “took possession of the letters” in the course of preparing documents related to the firing of Syed’s then-lawyer Ramesh Tiwary.
“The letters were not used in AGC’s response,” Ng said, adding that he had not personally seen any of the letters.
