Masoud Rahimi v Attorney-General: Striking Out Application, Constitutional Rights of Prisoners Awaiting Capital Punishment

Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and 30 other applicants, prisoners awaiting capital punishment, filed an originating application in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 19 September 2024, seeking declarations that certain provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 and the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 are unconstitutional. The Attorney-General applied to strike out the application. Hoo Sheau Peng J allowed the Attorney-General's application and struck out the originating application in its entirety, finding that the applicants lacked the requisite standing and that their challenges had no chance of success. The judgment was delivered on 5 February 2025.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed. The originating application was struck out in its entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Constitutional

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to strike out originating application by prisoners awaiting capital punishment for declarations that certain provisions are unconstitutional. The court allowed the application.

1.7 Decision Date

4 February 2025

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Roslan bin Bakar	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Rosman bin Abdullah	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Iskandar bin Rahmat	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Ramdhan bin Lajis	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Lingkesvaran Rajendaren	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Mohammad Reduan bin Mustaffar	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Muhammad Hamir bin Laka	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Jumadi bin Abdullah	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Muhammad Salleh bin Hamid	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Zamri bin Mohd Tahir	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Gunalan Goval	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Steve Crocker	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Shisham bin Abdul Rahman	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Chandroo Subramaniam	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Sulaiman bin Jumari	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Sanjay Krishnan	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Chong Hoon Cheong	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Teo Ghim Heng	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Tan Kay Yong	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Eddie Lee Zheng Da	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Kishor Kumar a/l Raguan	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Azuin bin Mohd Tap	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Application to strike out originating application allowed	Won	Chew Shi Jun James of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teo Meng Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jocelyn of Attorney-General’s Chambers J Jayaletchmi of Attorney-General’s Chambers

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau Peng	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chew Shi Jun James	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Teo Meng Hui	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jocelyn	Attorney-General’s Chambers
J Jayaletchmi	Attorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

The applicants are 31 prisoners awaiting capital punishment.
The applicants filed an originating application (OA 972) challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the SCJA and CPC.
The challenged provisions were introduced by the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022.
The Attorney-General applied to strike out the originating application.
The High Court struck out the application, finding the applicants lacked standing.
The court also found that the challenged provisions are constitutional.
The challenged provisions relate to post-appeal applications in capital cases.

5. Formal Citations

Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General, Originating Application No 972 of 2024 (Summons No 2898 of 2024), [2025] SGHC 20

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1969-01-01	Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 enacted
2010-01-01	Criminal Procedure Code 2010 enacted
2022-01-01	Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 enacted
2023-09-26	HC/OA/987/2023 filed
2023-12-05	HC/OA/987/2023 struck out
2024-03-27	Court of Appeal affirmed decision to strike out HC/OA/987/2023
2024-06-28	Impugned Provisions came into force
2024-09-19	OA 972 filed
2025-01-20	Judgment reserved
2025-02-05	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Standing
- Outcome: The court held that the applicants lacked the requisite standing to bring the constitutional challenge.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Real interest
  - Real controversy
  - Personal right
- Related Cases:
  - [2024] 4 SLR 331
  - [2024] 1 SLR 414
  - [2014] 1 SLR 345
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112
  - [2012] 4 SLR 476
  - [2013] 4 SLR 1
  - [2021] 1 SLR 809
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
  - [1988] 2 SLR(R) 571
  - [2024] 2 SLR 588
  - [1982] AC 617
Constitutionality of Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 ss 60G(7)(d), 60G(8), 60H(6), and 60I(1)
- Outcome: The court held that the challenged provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 were constitutional and did not violate Article 9 of the Constitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Fair trial
  - Access to justice
  - Summary dismissal
  - Reasonable prospect of success
- Related Cases:
  - [2020] 2 SLR 883
  - [2022] 2 SLR 1197
  - [1996] 1 SLR 609
  - [1981] 1 AC 648
Constitutionality of Criminal Procedure Code 2010 s 313(2)
- Outcome: The court held that the challenged provision of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 was constitutional and did not violate Article 9 of the Constitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Access to justice
  - Right to life
  - Abuse of process
Equality before the law
- Outcome: The court held that the challenged provisions did not violate Article 12 of the Constitution, as they satisfied the reasonable classification test.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2022] 1 SLR 1347
  - [2015] 1 SLR 26

8. Remedies Sought

Declarations that ss 60G(7)(d), 60G(8), 60H(6) and 60I(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 and s 313(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 are void

9. Cause of Actions

Constitutional challenge

10. Practice Areas

Constitutional Law
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2024] 4 SLR 331	Singapore	Details the procedural history of a previous application (OA 987) with similar issues.
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2024] 1 SLR 414	Singapore	Affirmed the decision to strike out OA 987, holding that the applicants lacked standing because they were not affected by the challenged provisions.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 345	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court may accord locus standi to an applicant sans rights in certain circumstances where a non-correlative rights generating public duty is breached.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 112	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for establishing standing to bring an action for declaratory relief in constitutional challenges.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 476	Singapore	Discusses the requirements for establishing standing in constitutional challenges and the discretion of the court.
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1	Singapore	Discusses the principle that an applicant's standing remains subject to review until a final determination.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 809	Singapore	Cited for the observation that a prisoner’s loss of right to life does not extinguish other legal rights.
Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited to demonstrate that applicants must show they have been affected by the law they are challenging.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[1988] 2 SLR(R) 571	Singapore	Cited for the principle that rules of natural justice do not require that a hearing must be oral.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2024] 2 SLR 588	Singapore	Applicants relied on this case when arguing about real legal interest.
IRC v National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses	Unknown	Yes	[1982] AC 617	England and Wales	Cited by the applicants when highlighting that if the application is struck out, that it would create a grave lacuna in the system of public law.
Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 883	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in applications to commence judicial review, permission is needed, and the court will consider whether there is an arguable case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting the remedies sought.
Adeeb Ahmed Khan s/o Iqbal Ahmed Khan v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 1197	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in applications for permission to file an appeal out of time due to the applicant's oversight, the court will consider the prospects of the appeal when deciding whether to grant permission.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts	Unknown	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited for the principle that that for seeking leave for judicial review, it has been articulated as a very low threshold.
Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor	Privy Council	Yes	[1981] 1 AC 648	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that fundamental rights should be interpreted broadly to convey their full measure of protection, and that restrictions on rights must be interpreted narrowly.
Ong Ah Chuan and another v. Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1979-1980] S.L.R.(R.) 710	Singapore	Cited when arguing that fundamental rules of nature justice [sic] are enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 211	Singapore	Cited to illustrate that courts have frowned upon the practice of drip-feeding arguments.
Kingsmen Exhibits Pte Ltd v RegalRare Gem Museum Pte Ltd and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC 238	Singapore	Cited to illustrate that courts have frowned upon the practice of drip-feeding arguments.
Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 507	Singapore	Cited for the principle that prior to the PACC Act Regime, it was not the case that an application filed to the court for a stay of execution would automatically operate as a stay of the same.
Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 1347	Singapore	Cited for the test for whether a piece of legislation breaches Art 12(1) of the Constitution and the reasonable classification test.
Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 26	Singapore	Cited for one of the approaches of the reasonable classification test.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 850	Singapore	Cited for the framework for statutory interpretation.
Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher	Unknown	Yes	[1980] A.C. 319	Unknown	Cited as per Ong Ah Chuan v PP (1981) 1 AC 648 for guarantees in article 9(1) should be generously interpreted in favour of life and liberty of the individual and that any derogation from the guarantee must be justified by some pressing social need on the part of the state.
Najar Singh v Government of Malaysia	Unknown	Yes	[1976] 1 MLJ 203	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that rules of natural justice do not require that a hearing must be oral.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021 O 9 r 16(1)(a)
Rules of Court 2021 O 24 r 5(3)(b)(ii)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60G(1)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60G(7)(a)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60G(7)(b)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60G(7)(c)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60G(7)(d)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60G(8)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60G(9)(a)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60H(6)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60I(1)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 60M	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 74	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 s 313(1)(ia)(ii)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 s 313(2)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 s 394H	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 9	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 9(1)	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 12	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 162	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act
PACC application
PACC permission
Reasonable prospect of success
Standing
Striking out application
Constitutional challenge
Capital punishment
Fair trial
Access to justice
Equality before the law

15.2 Keywords

constitutional law
civil procedure
capital punishment
standing
striking out

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Constitutional Law	90
Striking Out Applications	70
Civil Practice	60

16. Subjects

Constitutional Law
Civil Procedure
Criminal Law