Syed Suhail v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Execution Scheduling and Equal Protection
In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed an appeal by Syed Suhail, a prisoner facing capital punishment, against the High Court's dismissal of his application for judicial review. Syed Suhail challenged the scheduling of his execution, arguing it violated his right to equality under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granting Syed Suhail leave to commence judicial review proceedings solely on the scheduling ground, finding a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of unequal treatment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal allows judicial review on execution scheduling, addressing equal protection concerns under Article 12 of the Constitution.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Lost | Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Francis Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- Syed Suhail was convicted of possessing not less than 38.84g of diamorphine for trafficking.
- Syed Suhail was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty on 2 December 2015.
- Syed Suhail's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 18 October 2018.
- Syed Suhail's petition for clemency to the President was rejected on 5 July 2019.
- The President made an order for Syed Suhail to be executed on 18 September 2020.
- Syed Suhail filed an application seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings against his imminent execution.
- Datchinamurthy, another prisoner, was sentenced to death before Syed Suhail but had not been scheduled for execution.
5. Formal Citations
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 155 of 2020, [2020] SGCA 122
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor, , [2020] SGCA 101
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Datchinamurthy sentenced to death in the High Court. | |
| Syed Suhail sentenced to death in the High Court. | |
| Syed Suhail's appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Syed Suhail informed that his petition for clemency was rejected. | |
| Datchinamurthy informed that his petition for clemency was rejected. | |
| President made an order for Syed Suhail to be executed on 7 February 2020. | |
| President made an order for Datchinamurthy to be executed on 12 February 2020. | |
| Acting President ordered a respite of Syed Suhail’s execution. | |
| Scheduling of executions suspended due to application for judicial review. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed challenge to method of execution in Gobi (JR). | |
| President made a new order for Syed Suhail to be executed on 18 September 2020. | |
| Syed Suhail filed application seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings. | |
| High Court dismissed the application. | |
| Court of Appeal heard the appeal. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the review application. | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings solely on the scheduling ground. |
7. Legal Issues
- Equal Protection Under Article 12 of the Constitution
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of unequal treatment in the scheduling of the appellant's execution, warranting judicial review.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
- Differential treatment in scheduling executions
- Discrimination based on nationality
- Judicial Review of Executive Discretion
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the scheduling of executions is subject to judicial review to ensure consistency with constitutional rights.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Susceptibility of execution scheduling to judicial review
- Scope of judicial review over clemency power
- Clemency Power Under Article 22P of the Constitution
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found no prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the Cabinet had an unconstitutional policy of disregarding clemency petitions in drug-related cases.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
- Extinguishment of clemency power due to disuse
- Breach of natural justice in clemency process
8. Remedies Sought
- Prohibiting Order for a stay of execution
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution (Equal Protection)
- Breach of Article 22P of the Constitution (Clemency Power)
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Cabinet must consider materials impartially and in good faith when advising the President on the exercise of the clemency power under Article 22P(1) of the Constitution. |
| Ruddock v Vadarlis | Federal Court | Yes | (2001) 110 FCR 491 | Australia | Cited for the argument that a long period of disuse extinguishes the prerogative. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of a judicial review arising from an alleged unlawful method of execution. |
| Burmah Oil Company (Burma Trading Ltd) v Lord Advocate | House of Lords | Yes | [1965] AC 75 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the prerogative is not lost by disuse. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1979]–[1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that equal protection requires that 'like should be compared with like'. |
| Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Article 12 applies to differential treatment as a result of executive or administrative action. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ang Soon Huat | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 246 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that arbitrariness implies the lack of any rationality. |
| Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor | Privy Council | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that absolute equality in valuation for property tax purposes is not attainable. |
| Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 594 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of the equal protection clause could not be established by proving the existence of inequalities due to inadvertence or inefficiency unless they were on a very substantial scale. |
| Taw Cheng Kong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the test of arbitrariness appears to pitch the threshold too low. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | Cited as the reversal of Taw Cheng Kong v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR(R) 78. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power by the State. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power by the State. |
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | CA/CM 6/2019 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a prisoner ought to have a reasonable opportunity to consider and take advice on whether he had any grounds on which to challenge the clemency decision. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 192 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if grounds for a further legal challenge emerge, the appellant would be entitled to file a further challenge. |
| Thomas Reckley v Minister of Public Safety and Immigration | Privy Council | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 491 | Bahamas | Cited for the principle that if the constitutional motion raises a real issue for determination, it must be right for the courts to grant a stay prohibiting the carrying out of a sentence of death pending the determination. |
| Kho Jabing v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1273 | Singapore | Cited for setting out the appropriate principles on which the Court of Appeal should decide a criminal motion for a stay of execution. |
| Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1020 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the time bar applies only to quashing orders, and not mandatory orders or prohibiting orders. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an administrative act which carried no discretion of its own could still be construed as a decision to implement an anterior decision by another body, and would nonetheless be subject to judicial review for illegality. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 701 | Singapore | Cited as upholding Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council [2011] 4 SLR 156. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the acts of those holding public office enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. |
| Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumption of constitutionality can be no more than a starting point. |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 111 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumption of constitutionality can be no more than a starting point. |
| Mah Kah Yew v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1968–1970] SLR(R) 851 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that stare decisis concerns the binding effect of a ruling on a principle of law by one court upon another court (or upon itself). |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of res judicata. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 22P(2) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 22P(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 313(e) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 313(f) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 21(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 313(g) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 313(i) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 313(h) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 22P(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 394H | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 394J | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 9 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 12 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 12(1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 12(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 394B | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Equal protection
- Clemency power
- Scheduling of executions
- Prima facie case
- Reasonable suspicion
- Differential treatment
- Legitimate legal expectation
- Supervening factors
- Pannir Selvam period
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial review
- Equal protection
- Execution scheduling
- Clemency
- Singapore Constitution
- Article 12
- Article 22P
- Death penalty
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 95 |
| Judicial Review | 90 |
| Equal protection of the law | 85 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 40 |
| Criminal Procedure | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Judicial Review
- Human Rights