Apex court dismisses appeal by 36 death row inmates who filed challenge against new process

The highest court in Singapore on March 27 dismissed an appeal by 36 death row prisoners who had filed a constitutional challenge against two new provisions introduced by a law that aims to prevent abuse of the court processes.

The challenge relates to the Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act (Pacc Act), which introduces a new procedure for certain applications made by death row inmates after their avenues of appeal have been exhausted. These include the application to stay a judicial execution.

The law was passed by Parliament in 2022, but has not yet come into force.

In December 2023, a High Court judge struck out the inmates’ challenge on the grounds that they have no legal standing to bring the challenge.

This was because the provisions are not in operation and therefore did not affect the rights and interests of the 36 inmates, said the High Court.

The inmates then appealed against the High Court decision.

On March 27, the inmates appeared in a Zoom hearing before the Court of Appeal, which comprised Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Steven Chong and Belinda Ang.

The prisoners included Iskandar Rahmat, who was convicted of the 2013 Kovan double murder, and Masoud Rahimi Mehrzad, who was convicted in 2015 of trafficking heroin.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice told the inmates that the Act was not in force and did not affect any applications they have filed.

Masoud said the inmates did not know when the law would come into force.

The Chief Justice replied that there was nothing to stop them from filing the challenge when the Act comes into force.

Iskandar argued that the Act will come into force some time in the future.

The Chief Justice replied that the law would not apply retrospectively.

After a brief stand-down, the apex court dismissed the inmates’ appeal, saying that it agreed with the High Court judge’s analysis.

One of the provisions being challenged states that an inmate who has exhausted his avenues of appeal must first obtain permission from the Court of Appeal to make a post-appeal application.

The other provision allows the court to summarily dismiss the application for permission without a hearing.

The inmates contended that the two provisions were inconsistent with the rights to a fair trial and access to justice contained in Article 9 of the Constitution.

They also contended that the provisions were inconsistent with Article 12 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

In handing down the apex court’s decision, the Chief Justice said the question in the present case is whether the prisoners have actually been affected by the provisions.

The clear answer to that is “no”, he said. “The appellants are currently free to bring any application they wish without being affected in any way by the Pacc Act provisions, because these are not currently in force,” he said.

He added that any application that the inmates may make will not be affected by the Pacc Act coming into force in the future, because it is expressly stated the Act applies only prospectively.

Although the case was dismissed solely on the issue of standing, the court went on to note that the expectation of what due process requires for a prisoner who has exhausted all his avenues of appeal is very likely to be different when compared with an accused person who is being tried for the first time.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General [2024] SGCA 11

MPA to probe whether S’pore law violated in Dali ship crash that led to Baltimore bridge collapse ADV: Criminal Justice Forum: Discovery to Even the Playing Field