Nagaenthran v Attorney-General: Abuse of Process & Mental Capacity in Death Penalty Case
The Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the appeal and criminal motion filed by Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam against the Attorney-General. The appellant sought judicial review of his impending execution and an assessment by an independent panel of psychiatrists, arguing a deterioration in his mental faculties. The court found the proceedings to be a blatant abuse of process, aimed at delaying the execution, and the arguments baseless in fact and law. The court reiterated the importance of finality in judicial decisions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal dismisses Nagaenthran's appeal, finding abuse of process in delaying execution. The central legal issue concerns the appellant's mental capacity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Andre Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Wee Hao of Attorney-General’s Chambers Wong Li Ru of Attorney-General’s Chambers Janice See of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Andre Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wee Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wong Li Ru | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Janice See | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| L F Violet Netto | L F Violet Netto |
4. Facts
- Appellant was convicted of importing 42.72g of diamorphine in 2009.
- Appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal.
- Appellant filed applications for re-sentencing and judicial review, which were dismissed.
- Appellant petitioned for clemency, which was rejected.
- Appellant's counsel asserted a deterioration in the appellant's mental faculties.
- The High Court found the appellant had borderline intellectual functioning, not intellectual disability.
- The court found the appellant's actions constituted an abuse of process.
5. Formal Citations
- Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter, Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested for importing diamorphine | |
| Conviction and sentence upheld on appeal | |
| Appellant filed Criminal Motion No 16 of 2015 and Originating Summons No 272 of 2015 | |
| Criminal Motion No 16 of 2015 and Originating Summons No 272 of 2015 dismissed by High Court judge | |
| Appeals against decisions dismissed | |
| Appellant notified of scheduled execution on 10 November 2021 | |
| Appellant filed Originating Summons No 1109 of 2021 | |
| Mr. Navinkumar affirmed affidavit | |
| Originating Summons No 1109 of 2021 heard and dismissed | |
| Appellant filed Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 | |
| Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 filed | |
| Hearing of Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 adjourned | |
| Appellant filed affidavit from Dr. Sullivan | |
| Appellant granted leave to bring review application | |
| Appellant's counsel unable to practice | |
| Notice of change of solicitor filed | |
| Appellant filed further affidavit of Mr. Schaapveld | |
| Hearing of Criminal Motion No 30 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No 61 of 2021 | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found the appellant's actions constituted an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Drip-feeding applications
- Delaying tactics
- Misrepresentation of facts
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGCA 101
- [2016] 3 SLR 135
- [2016] 3 SLR 1273
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
- [2014] 3 SLR 1023
- Mental Capacity and the Death Penalty
- Outcome: The court found no admissible evidence of a decline in the appellant's mental condition.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deterioration of mental faculties
- Mental age below 18 years
- Fitness for execution
- Related Cases:
- [2017] SGHC 222
- [2019] 2 SLR 216
- [2019] 1 SLR 941
- Interpretation of Constitution and International Law
- Outcome: The court held that international law does not take precedence over domestic law in Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Incorporation of international law into domestic law
- Customary international law
- Treaty obligations
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 1129
- [2010] SGCA 20
- [2010] 3 SLR 489
8. Remedies Sought
- Stay of Execution
- Independent Psychiatric Assessment
- Leave to Commence Judicial Review
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
- Appeal against Sentence
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Constitutional Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 101 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of finality in justice. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must come a time when the last word of the court is the last word. |
| Kho Jabing v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1273 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that no court in the world would allow an applicant to prolong matters ad infinitum through the filing of multiple applications. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam | Unspecified | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 830 | Singapore | Cited as the initial appeal where the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingan v Public Prosecutor | Unspecified | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited as the initial appeal where the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 222 | Singapore | Cited as the High Court decision dismissing the appellant's application for re-sentencing. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 112 | Singapore | Cited as the High Court decision dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Unspecified | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited as the appeal where the court held that the appellant could not avail himself of s 33B(3) of the MDA. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that customary international law does not take precedence over domestic law in Singapore. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that customary international law requires extensive and virtually uniform state practice and opinio juris. |
| Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 841 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of criminal motions to invoke the court's criminal jurisdiction. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited regarding judicial review of the Attorney-General's prosecutorial discretion. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited regarding judicial review of the Attorney-General's prosecutorial discretion. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Unspecified | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the conditions to be met when adducing fresh evidence in support of an appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited for the attenuated application of the 'non-availability' condition when the Defence applies to adduce fresh evidence. |
| Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1169 | Singapore | Cited for clarifying the relevance of the non-availability condition when the Defence applies to adduce fresh evidence. |
| Sanjay Krishnan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 21 | Singapore | Cited regarding the conditions for adducing further evidence on appeal. |
| Juma’at bin Samad v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 327 | Singapore | Cited regarding the assessment of evidence at trial with counsel. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that treaty obligations are not self-executing under Singapore's legal system. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rejection of a new constitutional right that had been proposed to and rejected by the Government. |
| Public Prosecutor v ASR | Unspecified | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 941 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that 'age' in penal statutes refers to chronological age. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that lawyers should provide accurate and measured advice, serving the interests of justice. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is an abuse of process if an action is not brought bona fide for the purpose of obtaining relief but for some other ulterior or collateral purpose. |
| Arun Kaliamurthy and others v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1023 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the abuse of process principle in the context of a criminal motion. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394I of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Art 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Art 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 83 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Abuse of process
- Mental capacity
- Death penalty
- Judicial review
- Deterioration of mental faculties
- Finality
- International law
- Constitution
- Drip-feeding applications
15.2 Keywords
- Death penalty
- Mental capacity
- Abuse of process
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Judicial review
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- International Law
- Criminal Procedure