Syed Suhail v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Execution Scheduling & Equal Protection
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, applied for judicial review in the High Court of Singapore, challenging the scheduling of his execution ahead of other prisoners. He argued violations of Article 12 of the Constitution, claiming unequal treatment based on the sequence of sentencing and nationality. The Attorney-General was the respondent. See Kee Oon J dismissed the application, finding no violation of the applicant's constitutional rights.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review by Syed Suhail, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, challenging the scheduling of his execution. The court dismissed the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Francis Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty for trafficking diamorphine.
- The applicant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
- The applicant's petition for clemency was rejected.
- The President ordered the sentence of death to be carried out, but later ordered a respite.
- The applicant sought leave to apply for a prohibiting order for the stay of his execution.
- The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to commence judicial review proceedings solely on the scheduling ground.
- The Attorney-General’s Chambers was reviewing Datchinamurthy and Masoud’s cases following the Court of Appeal’s determination of CA/CM 3/2020.
5. Formal Citations
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 891 of 2020 (Summons No 4887 of 2020), [2021] SGHC 31
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant convicted and sentenced to death | |
| Applicant's appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal | |
| Applicant notified that his petition for clemency had been rejected | |
| President ordered the sentence of death to be carried out on 7 February 2020 | |
| President ordered a respite of the execution | |
| Application dismissed in Gobi (JR) | |
| President issued a new order for the applicant to be executed on 18 September 2020 | |
| Applicant commenced OS 891/2020 seeking leave to apply for a prohibiting order | |
| Applicant commenced CA/CM 28/2020, seeking leave under s 394H of the CPC to review his conviction | |
| The Judicial Review Leave Application was dismissed | |
| The applicant’s appeal against refusal to grant leave was heard by the Court of Appeal in CA 155/2020 | |
| The Court of Appeal dismissed the Criminal Review Application | |
| Hearing in the High Court | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of Article 12(1) as the applicant was not treated differently from other equally situated persons.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Impermissible differential treatment
- Unequal treatment in scheduling of execution
- Related Cases:
- [2020] SGCA 122
- [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542
- [2015] 5 SLR 1222
- [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710
- [2012] 2 SLR 49
- Breach of Article 12(2) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that Article 12(2) was inapplicable to the nationality argument.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Prohibiting order to stay execution
- Judicial Review
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
- Violation of Article 12(2) of the Constitution
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Constitutional Litigation
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited in relation to an alleged unlawful method of execution and the scheduling of execution of sentences of death resumed thereafter. |
| Public Prosecutor v Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 8 | Singapore | Cited for the facts of the case, conviction, and sentence to the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 122 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principles applicable when assessing a potential breach of Art 12(1) and to a comparator raised by the applicant. |
| Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 542 | Singapore | Cited for passages regarding the test for impermissible differential treatment. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for passages regarding the test for impermissible differential treatment. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 101 | Singapore | Cited for the grounds on which the applicant made the Criminal Review Application. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that equality before the law and equal protection of the law require that like should be compared with like. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that like should be compared with like and the application of Article 12(1). |
| Public Prosecutor v Ang Soon Huat | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 246 | Singapore | Referenced in Ridzuan for the test of deliberate and arbitrary discrimination. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 102 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the Attorney-General’s Chambers reviewing Datchinamurthy and Masoud’s cases. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for clarifying the law pertaining to the interplay between the presumption under s 18(1) of the MDA and the doctrine of wilful blindness. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the balance between prevention of error and the principle of finality. |
| Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 1012 | Singapore | Cited for the application of Article 12(1) in the context of prosecutorial decisions. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that discretion exercised by the executive was susceptible to judicial review. |
| Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 26 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a non-Singaporean would also have been entitled to make a claim that he had been discriminated under Art 12(1) on the grounds of nationality if he had evidence of such discrimination. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
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 |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Equal Protection
- Scheduling of Execution
- Article 12(1)
- Article 12(2)
- Differential Treatment
- Legitimate Reasons
- COVID-19 Pandemic
- Nationality
- Supervening Factors
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Equal Protection
- Execution Scheduling
- Singapore Constitution
- Drug Trafficking
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 95 |
| Judicial Review | 85 |
| Equal protection of the law | 75 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Criminal Law | 40 |
| Litigation | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Judicial Review