Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Decision on Certificate of Substantive Assistance
Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman applied to the High Court of Singapore for judicial review against the Attorney-General, challenging the Public Prosecutor's decision not to issue a Certificate of Substantive Assistance, the Cabinet's advice to the President regarding his clemency petition, and the Singapore Prison Service's refusal to grant him permission to interview a fellow inmate. See Kee Oon J. dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish an arguable case or a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favor of granting the remedies sought.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for judicial review of PP's decision not to issue a CSA. The court dismissed the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Teo Siu Ming of Attorney-General’s Chambers Adrian Loo Yu Hao of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Too Xing Ji | BMS Law LLC |
| Lee Ji En | Ascendant Legal LLC |
| Teo Siu Ming | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Adrian Loo Yu Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Francis Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was convicted of importing not less than 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore.
- The Public Prosecutor did not issue a Certificate of Substantive Assistance to the Applicant.
- The High Court was obliged to impose the mandatory death sentence on the Applicant.
- The President declined to exercise her power to commute the Applicant’s death sentence.
- The Applicant sought to challenge the rejection of his clemency petition.
- The Applicant alleged he was not served a notice informing him of the possibility of avoiding the death penalty.
- The Applicant claimed he provided information to the CNB that led to the arrest of a drug trafficker.
5. Formal Citations
- Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 807 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 80
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant convicted by the High Court on a capital charge of importing diamorphine. | |
| Applicant’s appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Applicant notified that the President had declined to exercise her power to commute the Applicant’s death sentence. | |
| Applicant filed Criminal Motion No 6 of 2019, seeking a stay of his scheduled execution. | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the criminal motion and granted the Applicant a stay of execution. | |
| Applicant filed Originating Summons No 807 of 2019, as well as a statement and an affidavit. | |
| Applicant filed Summons No 3167 of 2019 seeking specific discovery and leave to serve interrogatories against the Government of the Republic of Singapore. | |
| SUM 3167/2019 dismissed. | |
| Parties heard regarding Summons No 3764 of 2019 (SUM 3764/2019) seeking leave to appeal against decision in SUM 3167/2019. Leave to appeal declined. | |
| Originating Summons No 31 of 2019 (CA/OS 31/2019) seeking leave to appeal against decision in SUM 3764/2019 dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Hearing before me on 11 and 12 February 2020. | |
| Hearing before me on 11 and 12 February 2020. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to commence judicial review
- Outcome: Leave to commence judicial review was not granted.
- Category: Procedural
- Public Prosecutor's discretion in issuing a Certificate of Substantive Assistance
- Outcome: The court found no basis to challenge the Public Prosecutor's decision.
- Category: Substantive
- Cabinet's advice to the President regarding clemency petition
- Outcome: The court found no evidential foundation to challenge the Cabinet's advice.
- Category: Substantive
- Singapore Prison Service's refusal to grant permission to interview inmate
- Outcome: The court found the challenge against the Singapore Prison Service unmeritorious.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
- Mandatory Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 144 | Singapore | Cited for the Applicant's conviction on a capital charge of importing not less than 51.84g of diamorphine into Singapore. |
| Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 672 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish between private and public judicial review proceedings. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited regarding the conditions for leave to commence judicial review and the presumption that constitutional office holders make decisions in accordance with the law. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited regarding the purpose of the leave requirement in judicial review proceedings and the low threshold of a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts | Singapore Law Reports (R) | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 627 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Attorney-General's right to attend and be heard in public judicial review proceedings. |
| George John v Goh Eng Wah Brothers Filem Sdn Bhd | Malayan Law Journal | Yes | [1988] 1 MLJ 319 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the Attorney-General's right to attend and be heard in public judicial review proceedings. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Singapore Law Reports (R) | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 568 | Singapore | Cited regarding the start of the three-month period for seeking leave to apply for a Quashing Order. |
| UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 94 | Singapore | Cited regarding the explanation required for delay in bringing an application for judicial review. |
| Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Public Prosecutor's duty to issue a Certificate of Substantive Assistance if the facts justify it. |
| Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited regarding the timing for providing information to assist the Central Narcotics Bureau. |
| Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter | Singapore Law Reports | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 779 | Singapore | Cited regarding the threshold of irrationality in challenging the Public Prosecutor's decision. |
| Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General | Singapore Law Reports (R) | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542 | Singapore | Cited regarding the breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution. |
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 217 | Singapore | Cited regarding the dismissal of SUM 3167/2019 and the prerequisites of relevance and necessity. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 Rule 1(6) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Prisons Act (Cap 247, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Certificate of Substantive Assistance
- Clemency petition
- Mandatory death penalty
- Public Prosecutor
- Diamorphine
- Substantive assistance
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Public Prosecutor
- Certificate of Substantive Assistance
- Clemency
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Judicial Review | 85 |
| Leave to commence judicial review | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
| Penal Code | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Judicial Review