Nazeri bin Lajim v Attorney-General: Constitutional Rights, Equal Protection, and Stay of Execution

In Nazeri bin Lajim v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an expedited appeal on 21 July 2022, regarding Nazeri bin Lajim's application for a declaration that the Attorney-General arbitrarily imposed a capital charge against him, violating his rights under Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution, and for a stay of execution. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie evidence of a breach of Article 12(1), and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court also rejected the appellant's request for an adjournment to seek legal representation, deeming it an abuse of process.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Constitutional

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed Nazeri bin Lajim's appeal for a declaration that the Attorney-General arbitrarily imposed the capital charge, violating his constitutional rights. The court found no prima facie evidence of a breach.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyJudgment for RespondentWon
Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Rimplejit Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Nazeri bin LajimAppellant, ApplicantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Anandan BalaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chan Yi ChengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Rimplejit KaurAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was convicted in 2017 on a capital charge and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
  2. The appellant filed an Originating Application seeking a declaration that the AG had arbitrarily imposed the capital charge.
  3. The appellant argued his rights under Art 9(1) were violated because the deprivation of his life breached Art 12(1).
  4. The appellant claimed the AG acted arbitrarily in maintaining a capital charge against him while reducing charges for others.
  5. The High Court dismissed the Originating Application, finding the application was filed way out of time.
  6. The Judge found that the appellant did not furnish an acceptable explanation for the delay.
  7. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge that the appellant had not discharged his burden of producing prima facie evidence of a breach of Art 12(1).

5. Formal Citations

  1. Nazeri bin Lajim v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 29 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 55

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant convicted on a capital charge
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
Application filed for pre-action discovery
Application filed for review of Court of Appeal's decision
Application for pre-action discovery dismissed
Application filed seeking declaratory relief
Application seeking declaratory relief dismissed
President’s order for appellant’s execution issued
Warrant of Execution issued
Originating Application filed
Originating Application dismissed by High Court
Expedited appeal heard and dismissed by Court of Appeal
Scheduled execution date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that there had been a breach of the appellant’s rights under Art 12(1).
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2012] 2 SLR 49
  2. Breach of Article 9(1) of the Constitution
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that there had been a breach of the appellant’s rights under Art 9(1).
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the Attorney-General arbitrarily imposed the capital charge
  2. Prohibiting order and/or a stay of execution

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals
  • Judicial Review

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Dominic Martin Fernandez and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 226SingaporeCited for the appellant's conviction and sentencing details.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and anotherGeneral Division of the High CourtYes[2021] 4 SLR 698SingaporeCited regarding the dismissal of an application for pre-action discovery.
Nazeri bin Lajim v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 41SingaporeCited for the summary dismissal of an application for review.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-GeneralGeneral Division of the High CourtYes[2021] SGHC 274SingaporeCited regarding the dismissal of an application seeking declaratory relief.
Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 883SingaporeCited for the requirements to grant an applicant leave to commence judicial review.
Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng KongUnknownYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 489SingaporeCited for the concept of equality under Article 12(1).
Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy s/l KataiahCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 46SingaporeCited for the concept of equality under Article 12(1).
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2021] 1 SLR 809SingaporeCited for the evidential burden of showing differential treatment.
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 49SingaporeCited for the principle that mere differentiation of charges between co-offenders is not sufficient evidence of bias.
Yong Vui Kong v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2012] 2 SLR 872SingaporeCited for the factors the AG may take into account in determining whether to charge an offender.
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 1222SingaporeCited for the AG's evidential burden to justify his prosecutorial decision.
Norasharee bin Gous v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 51SingaporeCited for the principle that there must be a substratum of fact to support a real possibility of relief being granted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021 O 24 r 5(2)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33BSingapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(1)Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) Art 9(1)Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) Art 12(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394HSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 313(f)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 313(g)Singapore
Penal Code 1871 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 182Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 113Singapore
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (No. 9 of 2016) s 3(1)(b)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Capital charge
  • Mandatory death penalty
  • Equal protection
  • Judicial review
  • Stay of execution
  • Prima facie evidence
  • Prosecutorial discretion
  • Abuse of process
  • Originating Application
  • Article 12(1)
  • Article 9(1)

15.2 Keywords

  • Constitutional Rights
  • Equal Protection
  • Stay of Execution
  • Judicial Review
  • Capital Punishment
  • Singapore Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Constitutional Law90
Equal protection of the law85
Right to life and personal liberty80
Criminal Procedure80
Fundamental liberties80
Judicial Review75
Misuse of Drugs Act75
Stay of Execution70
Criminal Law70
Sentencing65
Administrative Law60

16. Subjects

  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Judicial Review