Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor: Constitutionality of Mandatory Death Penalty under Singapore Law
In Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty (MDP) under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Yong Vui Kong, the appellant, was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang Boon Leong, and Justice of Appeal V K Rajah, dismissed the appeal, holding that the MDP does not violate Articles 9(1) or 12(1) of the Singapore Constitution. The court found that the MDP is 'law' for the purposes of Article 9(1) and that the quantity-based distinction for imposing the MDP is rationally related to the object of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal upholds the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, finding it constitutional under Articles 9(1) and 12(1).
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Chua Ying-Hong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Walter Woon of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jaswant Singh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Davinia Aziz of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Yong Vui Kong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chua Ying-Hong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Walter Woon | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jaswant Singh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Davinia Aziz | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| M Ravi | L F Violet Netto |
4. Facts
- Yong Vui Kong was convicted of trafficking in 47.27g of diamorphine.
- Yong Vui Kong was sentenced to death in the High Court.
- Yong Vui Kong appealed against the sentence, arguing the mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional.
- The appeal was based on Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Singapore Constitution.
- The Misuse of Drugs Act mandates the death penalty for trafficking more than 15g of diamorphine.
- The appellant withdrew his initial appeal but was later granted leave to pursue it.
- The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of s 33 read with the Second Schedule to the MDA.
5. Formal Citations
- Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter, Criminal Appeal No 13 of 2008; Criminal Motion No 7 of 2010, [2010] SGCA 20
- Public Prosecutor v Yong Vui Kong, , [2009] SGHC 4
- Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor, , [2009] SGCA 64
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal Appeal No 13 of 2008 filed | |
| High Court decision issued ([2009] SGHC 4) | |
| Criminal Motion No 41 of 2009 filed | |
| Leave granted to pursue appeal ([2009] SGCA 64) | |
| Criminal Motion No 7 of 2010 filed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Constitutionality of Mandatory Death Penalty
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking does not violate Articles 9(1) or 12(1) of the Singapore Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [1981] AC 648
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103
- Interpretation of 'Law' in Article 9(1)
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that 'law' in Article 9(1) does not include customary international law that has not been incorporated into domestic law.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [1981] AC 648
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103
- [1939] AC 160
- Equal Protection under Article 12(1)
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the quantity-based distinction for imposing the mandatory death penalty is rationally related to the object of the Misuse of Drugs Act and does not violate Article 12(1).
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [1981] AC 648
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional
- Resentencing
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 9(1) of the Singapore Constitution
- Violation of Article 12(1) of the Singapore Constitution
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- Law Enforcement
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1981] AC 648 | Singapore | Affirms the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act and interprets the term 'law' in Article 9(1) of the Singapore Constitution. |
| Nguyen Tuong Van v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103 | Singapore | Affirms the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act, addressing arguments based on Articles 9(1), 12(1), and 93 of the Singapore Constitution. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] SGCA 64 | Singapore | Grants leave to the appellant to pursue the present appeal. |
| Woodson et al v North Carolina | US Supreme Court | Yes | 428 US 280 (1976) | United States | Cited for the principle that mandatory death penalty statutes are unconstitutional because they do not allow for consideration of mitigating circumstances. |
| Haw Tua Tau and others v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Characterizes the Prosecution's argument in Ong Ah Chuan as 'extreme'. |
| Jabar bin Kadermastan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 326 | Singapore | Discusses the applicability of Article 9(1) in the context of prolonged delay in execution of a death sentence. |
| Earl Pratt and another v Attorney-General for Jamaica and another | Privy Council | Yes | [1994] 2 AC 1 | Jamaica | Cited in relation to the argument that prolonged delay in execution constitutes inhuman punishment. |
| Willie Lee Richmond v Samuel A Lewis | US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit | Yes | 948 F 2d 1473 (1990) | United States | Cited as a contrasting decision to Pratt, holding that delay caused by the offender's legal proceedings does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. |
| Don John Francis Douglas Liyanage and others v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1967] 1 AC 259 | Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) | Cited in the context of legislation directed at securing the conviction of particular known individuals. |
| Reyes v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 235 | Belize | Discusses the unconstitutionality of the mandatory death penalty under Section 7 of the Constitution of Belize, which prohibits inhuman punishment. |
| Boyce and another v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [2005] 1 AC 400 | Barbados | Discusses the mandatory death penalty in light of Section 15(1) of the Constitution of Barbados. |
| Matthew v State of Trinidad and Tobago | Privy Council | Yes | [2005] 1 AC 433 | Trinidad and Tobago | Discusses the mandatory death penalty in light of Section 5(2)(b) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. |
| Watson v The Queen (Attorney General for Jamaica intervening) | Privy Council | Yes | [2005] 1 AC 472 | Jamaica | Discusses the mandatory death penalty in light of Section 17(1) of the Constitution of Jamaica. |
| Bowe and another v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [2006] 1 WLR 1623 | Bahamas | Distinguishes Ong Ah Chuan based on the absence of a constitutional provision prohibiting inhuman punishment in Singapore. |
| Fox v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 284 | Saint Christopher and Nevis | Concerns the stipulation in s 7 of the Constitution of Saint Christopher and Nevis that '[a] person shall not be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other like treatment'. |
| Regina v Hughes | Privy Council | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 259 | Saint Lucia | Concerns the stipulation in s 5 of the Constitution of Saint Lucia that '[n]o person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment'. |
| Bernard Coard and others v The Attorney General | Privy Council | Yes | [2007] UKPC 7 | Grenada | Concerns the stipulation in s 5(1) of the Constitution of Grenada that '[n]o person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment'. |
| Mithu v State of Punjab | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1983 SC 473 | India | Concerns the Indian equivalent of Arts 9(1) and 12(1) of the Singapore Constitution (namely, Arts 21 and 14 respectively of the Constitution of India). |
| Chung Chi Cheung v The King | Privy Council | Yes | [1939] AC 160 | United Kingdom (Hong Kong appeal) | Cited for the principle that international law has no validity save in so far as its principles are accepted and adopted by domestic law. |
| Collco Dealings Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners | House of Lords | Yes | [1962] AC 1 | United Kingdom | Illustrates the principle that a CIL rule must first be accepted and adopted as part of domestic law before it is valid. |
| Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Malta) | International Court of Justice | Yes | [1985] ICJ 13 | International | The substance of CIL 'is to be looked for primarily in the actual practice and opinio juris of States'. |
| North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) | International Court of Justice | Yes | [1969] ICJ 3 | International | To establish a rule of CIL, the state practice accompanying the opinio juris of States must be 'both extensive and virtually uniform'. |
| Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India) | International Court of Justice | Yes | [1960] ICJ 6 | International | To establish a rule of CIL, the state practice accompanying the opinio juris of States must be 'both extensive and virtually uniform'. |
| Asylum Case (Columbia v Peru) | International Court of Justice | Yes | [1950] ICJ 266 | International | To establish a rule of CIL, the state practice accompanying the opinio juris of States must be 'both extensive and virtually uniform'. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Arms Offences Act (Cap 14, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Internal Security Act (Cap 143, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) (India) | India |
| Criminal Code of Belize (Laws of Belize, c 84) | Belize |
| Offences against the Person Act 1864 (Laws of Jamaica, c 268) | Jamaica |
| Offences against the Person (Amendment) Act 1992 (No 14) | Jamaica |
| Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (Act 61 of 1985) (India) | India |
| Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Act 33 of 1989) (India) | India |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mandatory Death Penalty
- Article 9(1)
- Article 12(1)
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Diamorphine
- Customary International Law
- Inhuman Punishment
- 15g Differentia
- Equal Protection
- Rational Relation
15.2 Keywords
- Mandatory Death Penalty
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore Constitution
- Article 9(1)
- Article 12(1)
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Constitutional Law | 90 |
| Trafficking of Drugs | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Human Rights
- Drug Law