Syed Suhail v Attorney-General: Allegations of Racial Discrimination in Drug Trafficking Prosecutions
The plaintiffs, 17 Malay inmates of Changi Prison convicted of drug trafficking, sought declarations against the Attorney-General (AG), alleging racial discrimination in their prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act. They claimed the AG acted arbitrarily and unlawfully, exceeding his powers. The High Court dismissed the originating summons, finding no evidence of discrimination or bias in the AG's prosecutorial decisions. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' statistical evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court dismisses claims by Malay inmates alleging racial discrimination by the Attorney-General in drug trafficking prosecutions, finding no evidence of bias.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roslan bin Bakar | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Rosman bin Abdullah | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ramdhan bin Lajis | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Reduan bin Mustaffar | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Salleh bin Hamid | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Zamri bin Mohd Tahir | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Victoria Ting Yue Xin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Yong Kiat Francis of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Siew Mei Regina of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Merzad | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Hamzah bin Ibrahim | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Abdul Rahim Bin Shapiee | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Nazeri bin Lajim | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Norasharee Bin Gous | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Fazali Bin Mohamed | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Rahmat Bin Karimon | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | K K Cheng Law LLC |
| Cheng Kim Kuan | K K Cheng Law LLC |
| Tai Wei Shyong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Victoria Ting Yue Xin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Yong Kiat Francis | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Siew Mei Regina | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs are 17 Malay inmates convicted of drug trafficking.
- They allege the Attorney-General discriminated against them due to their ethnicity.
- Plaintiffs claim Malay offenders are statistically more likely to be prosecuted for capital drug offenses.
- They argue the AG's policies result in arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.
- The AG denies the allegations, stating ethnicity is not a factor in prosecutorial decisions.
- The plaintiffs' case rests entirely on statistical evidence.
- The plaintiffs do not allege that the AG and/or the CNB have adopted any expressly discriminatory policy.
5. Formal Citations
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 825 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 274
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Summons No 825 of 2021 and supporting affidavit filed | |
| Attorney-General filed two affidavits denying the allegations | |
| Plaintiffs informed the Registrar that they wished to adduce evidence from a witness in the employ of the CNB | |
| Name of witness revealed at a registrar’s pre-trial conference to be Mr Muhammad Zuhairi bin Zainuri | |
| Court directed the plaintiffs to file a summons for the relief they sought with a supporting affidavit | |
| Plaintiffs filed Summons No 4462 of 2021 seeking leave for Mr Zuhairi to give oral evidence | |
| Plaintiffs filed Summons No 4680 of 2021 seeking leave to amend OS 825 | |
| Reply affidavit filed on behalf of the AG by State Counsel Ms Regina Lim | |
| Further affidavits were filed to attest to the veracity of Mr Ravi’s First Affidavit | |
| Court dealt with Summons No 4462 of 2021 and Summons No 4680 of 2021 | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Article 9(1) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court dismissed the prayer for a declaration under Article 9(1).
- Category: Constitutional
- Breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court found no basis to grant a declaration that the plaintiffs' Article 12(1) rights were breached.
- Category: Constitutional
- Alleged Bias and Irrelevant Factors in Prosecution
- Outcome: The court found no basis to grant the third declaration sought by the plaintiffs.
- Category: Procedural
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that OS 825 is an abuse of the process of the court.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the AG acted arbitrarily against the plaintiffs
- Declaration that the AG discriminated against the plaintiffs
- Declaration that the AG exceeded his powers and acted unlawfully
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 9(1) of the Constitution
- Violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
- Unlawful exercise of power due to bias
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Criminal Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Government
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited regarding amendment to the originating summons to add an additional prayer. |
| Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 451 | Singapore | Cited regarding breaches of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and the proper forum for investigation and determination of the breach. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 698 | Singapore | Referenced in relation to a passage from Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosector | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Court of Appeal pronounced on disciplinary breaches committed by Mr Ravi. |
| Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 90 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Court of Appeal found that Mr Thuraisingam may have been in breach of one or more of his duties. |
| Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 91 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Court of Appeal found that Mr Thuraisingam's conduct was in contravention of Rule 29 of the PCR. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements that must be satisfied before a court will grant declaratory relief. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited regarding the threshold in an application for leave to commence judicial review. |
| Public Prosecutor v ASR | High Court | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 941 | Singapore | Cited regarding ways of showing that the relevant legislation is not 'law' within the meaning of Art 9(1). |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step test for determining whether executive action breached Art 12(1). |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proof and the evidential burden in relation to Art 12(1). |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited regarding the right to equal protection and the comparison of like with like. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited regarding the importance of precisely and correctly identifying the group of equally situated persons. |
| Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542 | Singapore | Cited regarding the assertion that an inequality in the result of the exercise of a power is sufficient to give rise to a suspicion of unequal treatment. |
| Yick Wo v Hopkins | US Supreme Court | Yes | 118 US 356 (1886) | United States | Cited as a US case where the petitioners were Chinese nationals who operated laundry businesses in wooden buildings. |
| DH and others v Czech Republic | European Court of Human Rights | Yes | (2007) 47 EHRR 59 | Europe | Cited as a case where the applicants, who were of Roma origin, had been placed in special schools for children with special needs, in contrast to ordinary primary schools. |
| R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Seymour-Smith and another | UK House of Lords | Yes | [2000] 1 All ER 857 | United Kingdom | Cited as a case where the applicants were female employees who were dismissed before they had completed the qualifying period for compensation for unfair dismissal. |
| Fraser v Canada (Attorney General) | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2020] SCJ No 28 | Canada | Cited as a case where the claimants were three women who were retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. |
| Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency); Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2017] 1 WLR 1343 | United Kingdom | Cited as a case where the claimants were employees of the UK Home Office who were all subject to the requirement to pass a core skills assessment as a prerequisite for promotion to certain civil service grades. |
| Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 1012 | Singapore | Cited regarding divergent consequences faced by accused persons involved in the same criminal enterprise. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited regarding the proposition that the relevant bias can be merely apparent. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 89 | Singapore | Cited regarding it being an abuse of process to invoke the civil jurisdiction of the court to mount a collateral attack on a decision made by the court in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction. |
| Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 118 | Singapore | Cited regarding cautioning a party seeking to uphold the constitutionality of an impugned legislative provision against a posture that he need only sit back and see what the challenger puts forward. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 |
| Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Racial discrimination
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Capital drug offences
- Article 9(1)
- Article 12(1)
- Statistical evidence
- Abuse of process
- Malay ethnicity
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Originating summons
15.2 Keywords
- Racial discrimination
- Drug trafficking
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Constitutional rights
- Singapore
- Malay
- Attorney-General
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 75 |
| Civil Practice | 60 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
| Criminal Law | 20 |
| Criminal Procedure | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights
- Discrimination