Iskandar v Attorney General: Constitutionality of CPC Cost Provisions & Right to Counsel
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Iskandar Bin Rahmat and others against the Attorney General and the Government of Singapore regarding the constitutionality of sections 356, 357, and 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (the CPC Cost Provisions). The appellants claimed the CPC Cost Provisions are inconsistent with Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution, denying their right to access to justice. They also sought damages for breach of statutory duty. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CPC Cost Provisions do not violate constitutional rights and that the damages claim lacked merit.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The court found that the Criminal Procedure Code cost provisions do not violate constitutional rights.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal judgment on whether Criminal Procedure Code cost provisions violate constitutional rights to access to justice and counsel.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roslan bin Bakar | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Rosman bin Abdullah | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ramdhan bin Lajis | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lingkesvaran Rajendaren | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Reduan bin Mustaffar | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Zamri bin Mohd Tahir | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Kay Yong | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General | Respondent, Defendant | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers John Lu Zhuoren of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ting Yue Xin Victoria of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Saminathan Selvaraju | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Pausi bin Jefridin | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Merzad | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Hamzah bin Ibrahim | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tangaraju s/o Suppiah | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Abdul Rahim Bin Shapiee | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohamed Shalleh Bin Abdul Latiff | Appellant, Claimant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Government of Singapore | Respondent, Defendant | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers John Lu Zhuoren of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ting Yue Xin Victoria of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| John Lu Zhuoren | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ting Yue Xin Victoria | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellants, convicted prisoners, challenged the constitutionality of CPC Cost Provisions.
- Appellants claimed the CPC Cost Provisions deny their right to access to justice.
- Appellants sought damages for breach of statutory duty to facilitate access to justice.
- The Attorney-General applied to strike out the entirety of the originating claim.
- The High Court Judge allowed the application and struck out the originating claim.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether the CPC Cost Provisions deter lawyers from acting in bona fide applications for death row inmates.
- Abdul Rahim filed a claim against his assigned counsel, alleging misconduct during the trial.
5. Formal Citations
- Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another, Civil Appeal No 31 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 58
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Conviction in joint trial for possessing a Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking. | |
| Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed. | |
| Warrants of Execution issued to the Commissioner of Prisons. | |
| Abdul Rahim received Notice of Execution. | |
| Originating Claim No 166 of 2022 filed. | |
| Attorney-General applied to strike out Originating Claim No 166 of 2022. | |
| Abdul Rahim filed HC/OC 173/2022 against his counsel at trial. | |
| Judgment delivered in Court of Appeal. | |
| Scheduled execution date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Constitutionality of Criminal Procedure Code Cost Provisions
- Outcome: The court held that the CPC Cost Provisions do not violate Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Violation of Article 9(1) of the Constitution
- Violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution
- Denial of access to justice
- Breach of Statutory Duty
- Outcome: The court held that the appellants failed to establish the elements of the tort of breach of statutory duty.
- Category: Substantive
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the claim against the counsel was an abuse of process and an afterthought.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Collateral attack on prior criminal judgment
- Filing of claim at the eleventh hour
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that CPC Cost Provisions are unconstitutional
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Constitutional Rights
- Breach of Statutory Duty
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Criminal Appeals
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 833 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the role and limitations of a McKenzie friend in court proceedings. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 26 | Singapore | Cited regarding the conduct of counsel and the impermissibility of a non-practicing lawyer providing substantive input in court proceedings. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Seow Ping and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 82 | Singapore | Cited for the trial judge's decision regarding the applicability of the alternative sentencing regime under s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 44 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that personal costs orders against counsel are justified when costs have been incurred unreasonably or improperly. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Cited for the high threshold that must be crossed before personal costs orders are made against counsel and the responsibility of counsel to advise their clients properly. |
| Roslan Bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 57 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of the argument that sections 356, 357, and 409 of the CPC have an impermissible chilling effect on lawyers and breach Article 9 of the Constitution. |
| 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 test of whether an action has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleadings are concerned, in the context of striking out pleadings. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice, such as where the claim is plainly or obviously unsustainable. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 698 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish the tort of breach of statutory duty. |
| Beh Chew Boo v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will not allow a litigant to launch a collateral attack on a prior criminal judgment through later civil proceedings because this is an impermissible abuse of process. |
| Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] AC 529 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that the court will not allow a litigant to launch a collateral attack on a prior criminal judgment through later civil proceedings because this is an impermissible abuse of process. |
| Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1169 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where evidence is available at the time of the trial and not adduced it will not readily be admitted on appeal without some consideration of why it was not produced earlier and without due regard to its materiality and reliability. |
| Kho Jabing v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1273 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the appellant expressly declined to adduce evidence at trial and did not take up the opportunity on appeal it was not a denial of a right to a fair trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 452 | Singapore | Cited for the position on the review powers in general, stating that an appellate court may only reopen an earlier decision when it has been presented with new material that gives rise to a powerful probability that substantial injustice has arisen. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| Prisons Act 1993 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Procedure Code Cost Provisions
- Access to Justice
- Right to Counsel
- Constitutional Rights
- Abuse of Process
- Statutory Duty
- McKenzie friend
- Chilling effect
- Collateral attack
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Constitutionality
- Access to Justice
- Right to Counsel
- Singapore Law
- Criminal Appeals
- Abuse of Process
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 90 |
| Abuse of Process | 75 |
| Torts | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Criminal Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure