[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: The Court of Appeals on Friday (October 23) granted a judicial review in the case of a drug trafficker sentenced to death, after finding an “apparent inconsistency” between an affidavit submitted by the state and known facts.
Attorney M Ravi had appealed against a previous court decision dismissing a judicial review for his client, Syed Suhail Syed Zin, 44, who was hanged last month for a 2015 conviction for possession of heroin for trafficking.
Mr. Ravi argued discrimination in scheduling the execution, saying that although another prisoner, Datchinamurthy Kataiah, had been sentenced to death before Syed, his client’s execution date was set earlier.
This is a violation of article 12 of the Singapore Constitution, which guarantees the right to the same protection, said Mr. Ravi.
He maintained that the execution order “does not share a logical link with the sentencing date” and deprived Syed of his right to a fair trial. If the execution sequence does not follow the order of the sentence, Syed may be deprived of time to present new evidence that will allow him to hear his case again, argued Ravi.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, along with Appellate Justices Andrew Phang and Judith Prakash, granted Syed a judicial review as the threshold to do so was crossed based on inconsistency between the state affidavit and known facts.
The affidavit was submitted to the state by Mr. Lim Zhi Yang from the Ministry of the Interior, and explained the reasons for the way the executions are scheduled.
Mr. Lim wrote that it was possible that “in scheduling the execution of sentences, the resolution of different supervening factors based on policy considerations that apply to different offenders may result in the execution date of the sentence for one offender who was later sentenced to death. scheduled before the execution date of the sentence for an offender sentenced to death earlier.
Syed was originally scheduled to hang himself on September 18.
Mr. Lim said that at the time of scheduling, Syed was the first to have been sentenced to death among all criminals in the same position he was in at the time.
Deputy Attorney General Francis Ng said this “completely removes any argument that Article 12 has been violated” and urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon told Mr. Ng that he accepted in principle that the state has some flexibility in deciding how to schedule executions, such as when some prisoners request court requests but others do not.
However, he said, this flexibility “must be exercised rationally and must not offend equity considerations.”
“To give an extreme example, it cannot be correct for the state to decide that a certain category of prisoners will have indefinite deferred executions, while another category (has) executed,” said the president of the Supreme Court.
The fact that a prisoner whose death sentence was pronounced later than another prisoner, but whose execution was scheduled earlier raises “a reasonable suspicion that something is wrong,” said the Chief Justice.
Mr. Ng said the prosecution was concerned that there would be “an ever-changing case that we have to address” if Mr. Ravi was granted permission for a judicial review.
The Chief Justice assured him that the only problem before the court was Syed’s case.
Mr. Ng urged the court to allow the prosecution to submit an additional affidavit explaining the circumstances of the Datchinamurthy Kataiah case, but the court did not grant it.
In granting Syed a judicial review, the court said it should be dealt with “quickly” in the superior court, without “Syed or the state providing drip evidence.”
The granting of judicial review comes a week after Mr Ravi had his request for another review of the 2018 court decision to keep Syed’s conviction and death sentence dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
The Superior Court will hear judicial review of Syed’s case at a later date.
