Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General: Constitutional Challenge to Drug Trafficking Conviction
In Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard a motion by Ramalingam Ravinthran to re-open his drug trafficking conviction, arguing that the Attorney-General violated Article 12(1) of the Constitution by charging him with capital offenses while charging his accomplice, Sundar Arujunan, with non-capital offenses for the same criminal enterprise. The court dismissed the motion, finding that Ramalingam had not provided sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case of a violation of Article 12(1) and that the Attorney-General's prosecutorial discretion was not exercised unconstitutionally.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Motion Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ramalingam Ravinthran challenges his drug trafficking conviction, alleging a violation of Article 12(1) due to unequal treatment compared to his accomplice. The appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramalingam Ravinthran | Applicant | Individual | Motion Dismissed | Lost | M Ravi |
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Mavis Chionh, Teo Guan Siew, Zhuo Wenzhao |
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 |
|---|---|
| M Ravi | L F Violet Netto |
| Mavis Chionh | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Teo Guan Siew | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Zhuo Wenzhao | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was convicted of two charges of trafficking in controlled drugs.
- The charges carried the mandatory death penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- The Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal.
- The Applicant applied to re-open the judgment, alleging a violation of Article 12(1).
- The Attorney-General charged the Applicant with capital offenses but charged Sundar with non-capital offenses.
- Both the Applicant and Sundar were involved in the same criminal enterprise.
- Sundar was a prosecution witness against the Applicant at the trial.
5. Formal Citations
- Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General, Criminal Motion No 60 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 2
- Public Prosecutor v Ramalingam Ravinthran, , [2009] SGHC 265
- Ramalingam Ravinthran v Public Prosecutor, , [2011] SGCA 14
- Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General, , [2011] 4 SLR 196
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant drove to Sri Arasakesari Sivan Temple and met Sundar. | |
| Sundar placed a sports bag in the Applicant's car. | |
| Applicant and Sundar were arrested by CNB officers. | |
| Sundar was charged with drug trafficking offences. | |
| Sundar pleaded guilty and was sentenced. | |
| Applicant was charged with drug trafficking offences. | |
| Applicant was convicted by the High Court judge. | |
| Applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. | |
| Applicant's application for judicial review was dismissed. | |
| Applicant filed Criminal Motion No 60 of 2011. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that there was no violation of Article 12(1) as the Applicant did not produce sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case of a violation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unequal treatment before the law
- Discriminatory prosecution
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Outcome: The court held that the Attorney-General's prosecutorial discretion was not exercised unconstitutionally.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Limits of prosecutorial power
- Judicial review of prosecutorial decisions
- Functus Officio Principle
- Outcome: The court addressed the procedural issue of whether it was functus officio but decided to hear the motion due to the constitutional point involved.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Finality of judgments
8. Remedies Sought
- Amendment of capital charges to non-capital charges
- Setting aside the sentence and replacing it with a non-capital sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Constitutional Rights
- Unlawful Discrimination
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Constitutional Law
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- Law Enforcement
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Ramalingam Ravinthran | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 265 | Singapore | Sets out the factual background of the case and the Trial Judge's decision. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 14 | Singapore | Dismissed the Applicant's appeal against his conviction. |
| Lim Choon Chye v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 1024 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of functus officio. |
| Abdullah bin A Rahman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 1017 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of functus officio. |
| Vignes s/o Mourthi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of functus officio. |
| Koh Zhan Quan Tony v Public Prosecutor and another motion | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 830 | Singapore | Discusses the exception to the functus officio principle. |
| Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the finality principle in civil proceedings. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 192 | Singapore | Discusses the principle of functus officio in the criminal context and the power of the court to correct mistakes to avoid a miscarriage of justice. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | Court of 3 Judges | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | States that the Attorney-General's prosecutorial discretion cannot be exercised for an extraneous purpose or in breach of constitutional rights. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Discusses the constitutional requirements of equality before the law in the context of mandatory penalties. |
| Teh Cheng Poh v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979] 1 MLJ 50 | Malaysia | Concerns the constitutionality of an exercise of the prosecutorial discretion vis-à-vis the protection of equality before the law. |
| Sim Min Teck v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 65 | Singapore | Follows Teh Cheng Poh and rejects the argument that prosecuting one accomplice for murder while charging another with culpable homicide violates Article 12(1). |
| Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 362 | Singapore | Follows Teh Cheng Poh and Sim Min Teck, holding that the Prosecution has a wide discretion to determine what charges should be preferred against any particular offender. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Discusses the justiciability of the constitutional clemency process and the presumption of legality. |
| Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor | Privy Council | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | Concerns the Chief Assessor’s assessment of the annual value of the appellant’s dwelling house and the presumption of good faith of officers. |
| Lee Keng Guan and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977–1978] SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | Concerns the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | Concerns the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute. |
| Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility et al v Nelson A Rockefeller et al | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Yes | 477 F 2d 375 | United States | Discusses the separation of powers doctrine and judicial aversion to compelling prosecutions. |
| United States v Christopher Lee Armstrong et al | United States Supreme Court | Yes | 517 US 456 | United States | Concerns the constitutional prescription of equal protection and the presumption of regularity in prosecutorial decisions. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | States that all legal powers are subject to limits. |
| Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Doody | House of Lords | Yes | [1994] 1 AC 531 | United Kingdom | Reflects the English position at common law that the Attorney-General has no general obligation to disclose his reasons for making a particular prosecutorial decision. |
| Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex parte Manning and another | Queen's Bench | Yes | [2001] QB 330 | United Kingdom | Concerns the obligation of the Director of Public Prosecutions to give reasons for a decision not to prosecute. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) s 33 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 12(1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 35(8) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 147(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) Div 1 of Pt XX | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) Pt V | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drug Trafficking
- Article 12(1)
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Equality Before the Law
- Functus Officio
- Mandatory Death Penalty
- Constitutional Rights
- Criminal Enterprise
- Unlawful Discrimination
- Presumption of Constitutionality
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Article 12(1)
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Equality Before the Law
- Functus Officio
- Mandatory Death Penalty
- Singapore Constitution
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Human Rights
- Equality Before the Law
- Criminal Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure