Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor: Intervention in Criminal Appeal & Constitutionality of Penal Code s 300(a)
Iskandar bin Rahmat, who was previously convicted of murder, sought leave to intervene in the criminal appeal of Teo Ghim Heng to challenge the constitutionality of section 300(a) of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to permit intervention in an unrelated criminal appeal based on a shared interest in a point of law. The court emphasized the principle of finality and the absence of a legitimate jurisdictional basis for the application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application 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 Iskandar bin Rahmat's application to intervene in another criminal appeal to challenge Penal Code s 300(a), citing lack of jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Ng Jun Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Winston Man of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ng Jun Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Winston Man | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | KK Cheng Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Iskandar bin Rahmat was convicted of two counts of murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code.
- His appeal against his convictions was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 3 February 2017.
- Iskandar sought leave to intervene in the criminal appeal of Teo Ghim Heng to challenge the constitutionality of s 300(a).
- Iskandar argued that s 300(a) violates Article 12 of the Constitution.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed Iskandar's application for lack of jurisdiction.
5. Formal Citations
- Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 21 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 89
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal | |
| Complaint filed with the Law Society against trial counsel | |
| Law Society informed Applicant that no further action would be taken | |
| HC/OS 716/2019 filed seeking review of the Council’s determination | |
| High Court dismissed OS 716 | |
| Application filed seeking leave to intervene in CCA 36 | |
| Appeal against the High Court’s decision in CA/CA 9/2020 dismissed | |
| Application heard and dismissed | |
| Grounds of decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction to Intervene in Criminal Appeal
- Outcome: The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to permit the Applicant to intervene in an unrelated criminal appeal.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Absence of jurisdictional basis
- Collateral attack on conviction
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 4 SLR 841
- [2013] 3 SLR 258
- Constitutionality of Penal Code Section 300(a)
- Outcome: The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of section 300(a) as the application to intervene was dismissed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
- Right to mitigation
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to intervene in criminal appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment where the Applicant's appeal against his convictions was dismissed. |
| Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 841 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has jurisdiction to hear applications for specific reliefs incidental to a primary action invoking its criminal jurisdiction. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a court's jurisdiction. |
| Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah and other applications | Unknown | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 348 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a court's jurisdiction. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that the court's appellate jurisdiction is not completely exhausted by the rendering of a decision on the merits. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 6 of the CPC supports the imposition of a duty on the Prosecution to disclose a limited amount of unused material. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution ought to be under a duty to disclose a material witness’ statement to the defence, pursuant to s 6 of the CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 586 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if there had been no common law right permitting an accused person access to documents over which he had ownership or legal custody or a legal right to control immediately before the lawful seizure, such a right to access would have been recognised pursuant to s 6 of the CPC. |
| Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 487 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that allowing an accused person access to such documents would be entirely consistent with notions of a fair trial. |
| Attorney-General v Tee Kok Boon | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 412 | Singapore | Cited for the Attorney-General’s power to intervene in private prosecutions. |
| Cheng William v Loo Ngee Long Edmund | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 626 | Singapore | Cited for the Attorney-General’s power to intervene in private prosecutions. |
| Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 246 | Singapore | Cited for the Attorney-General’s unique and integral role as the guardian of the public interest vis-à-vis the institution and conduct of all criminal proceedings. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 105 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court considered that it had the power to grant the Prosecution’s application for a joint trial of three accused persons under ss 143(b) and/or (c) of the CPC. |
| Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd and others v Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co, Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 85 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing O 57 r 10 of the ROC, which empowers the Court of Appeal to direct that the record of appeal and cases be served on any person who is not a party to the appeal proceedings, and to allow that person’s participation in the appeal. |
| Berg v Glentworth Bulb Company Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | Berg v Glentworth Bulb Company Ltd | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has a discretion to hear anyone in support of an appeal, but it is a discretion which is very sparingly exercised. |
| Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compania De Navegación Palomar, SA and others and other appeals | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 894 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step inquiry that the court must undertake in applying O 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii) of the ROC. |
| Reignwood International Investment (Group) Co Ltd v Opus Tiger 1 Pte Ltd and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 133 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the mere fact that a person is able to assist the court with evidence and submissions on an issue which the court will have to determine in pending proceedings is not sufficient in itself to warrant joining that person as a party to those proceedings under the just and convenient limb. |
| ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there was an existing question on the availability of public interest privilege between the existing parties, which involved the Attorney-General, who is the guardian of the public interest. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has the power under s 357(1) of the CPC or inherently to order that defence counsel pay costs directly to the Prosecution if certain conditions are met. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 15 rr 6(2)(b)(ii) |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 6(3) |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 10 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(a) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394H | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 60D | Singapore |
| Constitution (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Article 12 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 6 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 377 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 387 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 143 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 144 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 145 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 13 | Singapore |
| Constitution Art 35(8) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 132 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 357(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Intervention
- Criminal appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Constitutionality
- Penal Code section 300(a)
- Article 12
- Right to mitigation
- Principle of finality
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Motion
- Intervention
- Criminal Appeal
- Constitutionality
- Penal Code
- Jurisdiction
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Appeal | 80 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Review | 70 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
| Constitutional Law | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Procedure