Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy: Equal Protection, Right to Life, Stay of Execution
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by the Attorney-General against the decision of the General Division of the High Court to grant Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah leave to commence judicial review proceedings and a stay of execution. Datchinamurthy, convicted of a capital offense, argued that scheduling his execution while a civil matter (OS 188) was pending violated his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a prima facie case of unequal treatment under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal upheld a stay of execution for Datchinamurthy, finding a prima facie case of unequal treatment due to a pending civil matter.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Appellant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Pavithra Ramkumar of Attorney-General’s Chambers Yang Ziliang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Respondent, Applicant | Individual | Stay of Execution Upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Pavithra Ramkumar | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Yang Ziliang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Datchinamurthy was convicted of trafficking diamorphine and sentenced to death.
- A date for Datchinamurthy's execution was fixed while a civil matter (OS 188) in which he was a plaintiff was pending.
- OS 188 concerned allegations that the Attorney-General had unlawfully requested disclosure of Datchinamurthy's personal correspondence.
- Datchinamurthy argued that scheduling his execution before OS 188 was resolved violated his rights under Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution.
- The High Court granted Datchinamurthy leave to commence judicial review proceedings and ordered a stay of execution.
- The Attorney-General appealed the High Court's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, Civil Appeal No 20 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 46
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent sentenced to mandatory death penalty. | |
| Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed. | |
| Respondent filed HC/OS 111/2020. | |
| Respondent filed HC/OS 181/2020. | |
| OS 111 and OS 181 were dismissed by the High Court. | |
| Respondent’s appeals against the decisions in both cases were dismissed by this court. | |
| Respondent commenced HC/OS 975/2020. | |
| Respondent filed CA/CM 9/2021. | |
| CM 9 was summarily dismissed. | |
| OS 975 was dismissed by the judge in the General Division of the High Court. | |
| Respondent was one of 13 plaintiffs in HC/OS 664/2021. | |
| Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated that they intended to withdraw OS 664. | |
| The same 13 plaintiffs in OS 664 filed HC/OS 188/2022. | |
| The President made a new order for the respondent to be executed on 29 April 2022. | |
| The Warrant of Execution was issued. | |
| A letter from the SPS informing the respondent’s mother of his upcoming execution was sent. | |
| The respondent filed HC/OA 67/2022. | |
| The Judge observed that OA 67 erroneously relied on O 53 r 1 of the 2014 Rules instead of O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2021. | |
| Oral judgment delivered. | |
| Date of the judgment. | |
| Date of the judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Article 9(1) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that there was no prima facie case of a breach of Article 9(1) of the Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court found a prima facie case of a breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Notice was in breach of the respondent’s rights under Arts 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution
- Prohibiting order or stay of execution of the respondent’s sentence of death, pending the resolution of OS 188
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Constitutional Rights
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing of the respondent to the mandatory death penalty. |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 30 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of the respondent's application to review the court's dismissal of his appeal. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited for the court's observation on the Singapore Prison Service forwarding correspondence to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 270 | Singapore | Cited for the court's finding that there was no basis for Mr Ravi to have proceeded to make an application under O 53. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 698 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of OS 975 by the judge in the General Division of the High Court. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning of 'in accordance with law' in Art 9(1). |
| Nguyen Tuong Van v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning of 'in accordance with law' in Art 9(1). |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited for the scope of 'life' in Art 9(1). |
| Lo Pui Sang and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 754 | Singapore | Cited for the ambit of 'personal liberty' in Art 9(1). |
| 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 ambit of 'personal liberty' in Art 9(1). |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental rules of natural justice. |
| Russell v Duke of Norfolk and Others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1949] 1 All ER 109 | England and Wales | Cited for the essential aspect under the hearing rule. |
| Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Minister for Manpower (formerly known as Minister for Labour | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 866 | Singapore | Cited for the essential aspect under the hearing rule. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution and trial judge had erred in conflating actual knowledge and wilful blindness. |
| Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 927 | Singapore | Cited for the applicant cannot make more than one review application in respect of any decision of an appellate court. |
| Panchalai a/p Supermaniam and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 37 | Singapore | Cited for the applicant cannot make more than one review application in respect of any decision of an appellate court. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | Cited for the concept of equality under Art 12(1). |
| Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 16 | Singapore | Cited for the court would be searching in its scrutiny. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 452 | Singapore | Cited for prisoners awaiting capital punishment might prima facie be regarded as being equally situated once they have been denied clemency. |
| Barrington Cove Limited Partnership v Rhode Island Housing & Mortgage Finance Corporation | United States Court of Appeals | Yes | 246 F 3d 1 (1st Cir, 2001) | United States | Cited for the test is a factual one of whether a prudent person would objectively think the persons concerned are roughly equivalent or similarly situated in all material respects. |
| Superior Communications v City of Riverview, Michigan | United States Court of Appeals | Yes | 881 F 3d 432 (6th Cir, 2018) | United States | Cited for the test is a factual one of whether a prudent person would objectively think the persons concerned are roughly equivalent or similarly situated in all material respects. |
| Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 386 | Singapore | Cited for the rules of natural justice represent what the ordinary man expects and accepts as fair procedure for the resolution of conflicts and disputes by a decision making body that affects his interest. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 26 | Singapore | Cited for actions brought at an eleventh hour and without merit in fact and/or law could lead to the inference that they were filed not with a genuine intention to seek relief, but as a “stopgap” measure to delay the carrying out of a sentence imposed on an offender. |
| Re Nalpon, Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1378 | Singapore | Cited for the application is a means of filtering out groundless or hopeless cases at an early stage. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the application is a means of filtering out groundless or hopeless cases at an early stage. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for sufficient interest would be prima facie made out where there was an alleged violation of a constitutional right. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 53 rr 1 and 7 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 15 r 16 of the 2014 Rules |
| O 53 r 1 of the 2014 Rules |
| O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 24 r 5(3) of the 2021 Rules |
| O 3 r 2(4) of the 2021 Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 313(f) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 313(g) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 313(h) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394K(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Equal protection
- Right to life
- Stay of execution
- Judicial review
- Prima facie case
- Unequal treatment
- Pending proceedings
- Constitutional rights
15.2 Keywords
- Execution
- Judicial Review
- Constitutional Rights
- Equal Protection
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Stay of Execution | 70 |
| Civil Rights | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Human Rights
- Judicial Review