Roslan bin Bakar v Public Prosecutor: Review of Drug Trafficking Conviction and Death Sentence
Roslan bin Bakar and Pausi bin Jefridin, along with Lawyers for Liberty, applied to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore on 15 February 2022, for leave to review prior decisions related to their drug trafficking convictions and death sentences. The court, presided over by Judith Prakash JCA, Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD, and Woo Bih Li JAD, dismissed the application, finding no legitimate basis for review under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also ruled that Lawyers for Liberty lacked standing to be a party to the application. The applicants had been convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death, and this application was an attempt to halt their scheduled executions.
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 an application for review of death sentences for drug trafficking, finding no legal basis for review under s 394H CPC.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Won | Won | Francis Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers Samuel Yap Zong En of Attorney-General’s Chambers Shenna Tjoa Kai-En of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Roslan bin Bakar | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Pausi bin Jefridin | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Lawyers for Liberty | Applicant | Association | Application dismissed | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Francis Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Samuel Yap Zong En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shenna Tjoa Kai-En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Charles Yeo Yao Hui | L F Violet Netto |
4. Facts
- Roslan bin Bakar and Pausi bin Jefridin were convicted of drug trafficking.
- The applicants were sentenced to death.
- The applicants previously applied for re-sentencing under s 33B of the MDA.
- The High Court found that neither applicant suffered from an abnormality of mind.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's findings.
- Lawyers for Liberty is a Malaysian non-governmental organisation campaigning against the death penalty.
- The applicants sought leave to review the Court of Appeal's decisions in CA 59 and CA 26.
5. Formal Citations
- Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 6 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicants convicted and sentenced to death | |
| Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed | |
| First applicant filed criminal motion for re-sentencing | |
| Second applicant filed criminal motion for re-sentencing | |
| Applications for re-sentencing dismissed | |
| Appeals by CCA 59 and CCA 26 dismissed | |
| President ordered death sentences to be carried out | |
| Application filed to review earlier decisions | |
| Application heard and dismissed | |
| Grounds of decision delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Review of Earlier Decision
- Outcome: The court held that the applicants did not meet the requirements for a review under s 394H of the CPC and that Lawyers for Liberty lacked standing to be a party to the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirements for granting leave for review
- Standing to bring a review application
- Death Penalty and Mental Disorder
- Outcome: The court found that the applicants had no mental disorder or substantial mental impairment and therefore the arguments regarding the execution of persons with mental disorders were not applicable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Execution of intellectually disabled persons
- Mental disorder as a bar to execution
- Standing in Criminal Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that Lawyers for Liberty, as a third party, lacked standing to be a party to the application for review.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Third party intervention in criminal appeals
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of prior decisions
- Setting aside death sentences
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the framework for purposive statutory interpretation. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1151 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that third parties cannot intervene in unrelated criminal proceedings. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions that an applicant for leave to make a review application must satisfy in order to be granted such leave. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that a leave stage would better balance the rights and interests of all persons who make use of scarce judicial resources and allow unmeritorious applications to be weeded out at an early stage. |
| Pitman v State of Trinidad and Tobago; Hernandez v State of Trinidad and Tobago | Privy Council | Yes | [2018] AC 35 | Trinidad and Tobago | Cited for the principle that executing offenders suffering from substantial mental impairment would violate the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, but ultimately not applicable to the applicants' case. |
| S v Taanorwa | Supreme Court of Zimbabwe | Yes | 1987 (1) ZLR 62 (SC) | Zimbabwe | Cited for the principle that some background of mental disturbance less than a formally diagnosed mental disorder could provide a reason not to impose the death penalty, but ultimately not applicable to the applicants' case. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Unknown | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for there to be a rule of customary international law. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394F of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394G of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal review
- Leave application
- Standing
- Abnormality of mind
- Death penalty
- Drug trafficking
- Miscarriage of justice
- Re-sentencing
- Intellectual disability
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Death penalty
- Drug trafficking
- Singapore Court of Appeal
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Review | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Appeal | 80 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
- Sentencing
- Review of Court Decisions