Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Drug Trafficking Conviction Based on Alleged Discriminatory Prosecution
In Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Ramalingam Ravinthran's application for judicial review of his drug trafficking conviction. Ravinthran argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he faced capital charges while his co-accused, Sundar Arujunan, received non-capital charges. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, found no basis for judicial review, holding that the Attorney-General's prosecutorial discretion was not exercised unconstitutionally. The court dismissed the application for a prohibition order against the Director of Prisons and a mandatory order against the Attorney-General.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Ramalingam Ravinthran's application for judicial review, which alleged discriminatory prosecution in his drug trafficking case. The court found no violation of constitutional rights.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Teo Guan Siew of Attorney-General’s Chambers Aedit Abdullah of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Teo Guan Siew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Aedit Abdullah | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| M Ravi | L F Violet Netto |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff was convicted of two capital charges relating to drug trafficking.
- The plaintiff's appeal against the trial judge’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
- The plaintiff was arrested with a sports bag containing 5560.1g of cannabis and 2078.3g of cannabis mixture.
- One Sundar Arujunan, who was with the plaintiff, was also arrested.
- Sundar's charges were reduced to non-capital charges, and he pleaded guilty.
- The plaintiff argued that preferring capital charges against him while Sundar received non-capital charges violated his constitutional rights.
5. Formal Citations
- Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 234 of 2011, [2011] SGHC 140
- Public Prosecutor v Ramalingam Ravinthran, , [2009] SGHC 265
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau | |
| Public Prosecutor v Ramalingam Ravinthran [2009] SGHC 265 | |
| Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal | |
| Originating Summons No 234 of 2011 instituted | |
| Plaintiff withdrew application for quashing order | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Discriminatory Prosecution
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of Art 12(1) of the Constitution, and the Attorney-General's prosecutorial discretion was not exercised unconstitutionally.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1987] SLR(R) 65
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 362
- Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion
- Outcome: The court held that judicial review of the Attorney-General’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion is not totally excluded but only arises in two situations: prosecutorial discretion is abused in the sense that it is exercised in bad faith for an extraneous purpose or where the exercise of prosecutorial discretion results in a contravention of constitutional protection and rights.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
- Prohibition Order
- Mandatory Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Constitutional Rights
- Discriminatory Prosecution
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Public Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin & others v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold required for leave to be granted for judicial review, which is a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the relatively low threshold for granting leave for judicial review. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited as an instance where the application for leave and the merits of the case were heard together. |
| Re Racal Communications Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1981] 1 AC 374 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that judicial review is available for mistakes of law made by inferior courts and tribunals only. |
| Koh Zhan Quan Tony v PP and another motion | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 830 | Singapore | Cited to indicate that the plaintiff should have applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to file a motion to re-open the case. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Attorney-General has an unfettered discretion as to when and how he exercises his prosecutorial powers, except for unconstitutionality. |
| US v Christopher Lee Armstrong et al | United States Supreme Court | Yes | (1996) 517 US 456 | United States | Cited for the principle of judicial deference to the decisions of executive officers. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation | Unknown | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to the argument that the decision to prefer capital charges against the plaintiff smacks of “Wednesbury unreasonableness”. |
| Sim Min Teck v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 65 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Attorney-General has the discretion to institute proceedings for any offence and that Art 12(1) had not been infringed. |
| Teh Cheng Poh v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1979] 1 MLJ 50 | Malaysia | Cited for the factors a prosecuting authority may properly take into account in exercising its discretion as to whether to charge a person at all. |
| Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 362 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution has a wide discretion to determine what charge or charges should be preferred against any particular offender. |
| Sinniah Pillay v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 704 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is the prerogative of the prosecution to decide which charge it would prefer. |
| Mah Kah Yew v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1968-1970] SLR(R) 851 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that decisions of the Court of Appeal bind the High Court. |
| Wong Hong Toy and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 213 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that decisions of the Court of Appeal bind the High Court. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ramalingam Ravinthran | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 265 | Singapore | Original trial decision |
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) read with s 33 and the Second Schedule | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 53 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Arts 9 and 12 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 35(8) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 326 | Singapore |
| Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Equal Protection
- Capital Charges
- Drug Trafficking
- Constitutional Rights
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Judicial Review
- Constitutional Rights
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Constitutional Law | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Judicial Review