Vignes s/o Mourthi v PP: Court of Appeal's Jurisdiction on Re-Trial Application After Appeal Dismissal
Vignes s/o Mourthi appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Lai Kew Chai J, who dismissed his application for a re-trial after Vignes was convicted of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act and his initial appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Tan Lee Meng J, and Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to re-open cases after an appeal has been dismissed and the President has denied clemency.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Vignes' application for a re-trial, affirming that it lacks jurisdiction to re-open cases after an appeal has been dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Bala Reddy of Deputy Public Prosecutors Edwin San of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Vignes s/o Mourthi | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Bala Reddy | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Edwin San | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| M Ravi | M Ravi and Co |
4. Facts
- Vignes s/o Mourthi was found guilty of drug trafficking under s 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Vignes was sentenced to death, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
- Vignes' petition for clemency was dismissed by the President.
- Vignes applied for a re-trial based on two arguments: admissibility of evidence and right to counsel.
- The Court of Appeal found no merit in Vignes' arguments for a re-trial.
- The Court of Appeal determined it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to re-open the case.
5. Formal Citations
- Vignes s/o Mourthi v Public Prosecutor (No 3), Cr App 12/2003, [2003] SGCA 42
- Abdullah bin A Rahman v PP, , [1994] 3 SLR 129
- Lim Choon Chye v PP, , [1994] 3 SLR 135
- Jabar v PP, , [1995] 1 SLR 617
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Vignes s/o Mourthi found guilty of drug trafficking in Criminal Case No 25 of 2002. | |
| The mandatory death sentence was passed. | |
| Court of Appeal upheld Tay J’s decision in Criminal Appeal No 13 of 2002. | |
| Mr M Ravi was instructed by Vignes’ father to apply for a re-trial. | |
| Woo Bih Li J dismissed the application in Criminal Motion No 16 of 2003. | |
| The President dismissed Vignes’ petition for clemency. | |
| Mr Ravi filed a notice of appeal at 4.30pm. | |
| A coram of three judges convened and the appeal was heard. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to allow another appeal after appeal against conviction heard and dismissed
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it does not have jurisdiction to allow another appeal after an appeal against conviction has been heard and dismissed.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [1994] 3 SLR 129
- [1994] 3 SLR 135
- [1995] 1 SLR 617
- Admissibility of evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the admission of the document was correct.
- Category: Substantive
- Right to counsel of choice
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant was given a full opportunity to express his reservations about counsel and decided to stay with counsel.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for a re-trial
- Stay of execution
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdullah bin A Rahman v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 129 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal is functus officio after disposing of an appeal and lacks jurisdiction to hear fresh evidence or re-open the case. |
| Lim Choon Chye v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal cannot claim jurisdiction to allow another appeal against conviction in a case where an appeal has already been heard and dismissed. |
| Jabar v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 617 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once the Court of Appeal has disposed of the appeal against conviction and has confirmed the sentence of death, it is functus officio as far as the execution of the sentence is concerned. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Functus officio
- Re-trial
- Jurisdiction
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Clemency
- Criminal Motion
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal
- Appeal
- Re-trial
- Jurisdiction
- Drug Trafficking
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Appeal | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Constitutional Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Jurisdiction