Jumaat v Attorney-General: Constitutional Rights, Presumption of Innocence & Misuse of Drugs Act

Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, and Saminathan Selvaraju, inmates of Changi Prison sentenced to the mandatory death penalty for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 14 November 2022 for a declaration that the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act violate their constitutional rights, specifically the presumption of innocence. The court dismissed the application, holding that the presumptions do not violate Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Constitutional

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment regarding the constitutionality of presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, challenging their impact on the presumption of innocence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Jumaat bin Mohamed SayedClaimantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Lingkesvaran RajendarenClaimantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Attorney-GeneralDefendantGovernment AgencyApplication dismissedWon
Claire Poh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Hay Hung Chun of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Theong Li Han of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chong Ee Hsiun of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Saminathan SelvarajuClaimantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Datchinamurthy a/l KataiahClaimantIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Claire PohAttorney-General’s Chambers
Hay Hung ChunAttorney-General’s Chambers
Theong Li HanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chong Ee HsiunAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. The claimants are inmates of Changi Prison sentenced to the mandatory death penalty for drug offences.
  2. The claimants challenged the constitutionality of sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973.
  3. The claimants argued that the presumptions in the MDA violate the presumption of innocence.
  4. The Attorney-General argued that the presumptions are valid and do not contravene the Constitution.
  5. The High Court dismissed the application for permission to seek relief.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General, Originating Application No 480 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 291
  2. Public Prosecutor v Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, , [2018] SGHC 176
  3. Public Prosecutor v Lingkesvaran Rajendaren and another, , [2018] SGHC 234
  4. Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another, , [2015] SGHC 126
  5. Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public Prosecutor, , [2021] SGCA 30
  6. Public Prosecutor v Zulkarnain bin Kemat and others, , [2018] SGHC 161
  7. Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters, , [2020] SGCA 45

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 enacted
Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed convicted by the High Court
Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed's conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal
Lingkesvaran Rajendaren convicted by the High Court
Lingkesvaran Rajendaren's conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal
Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah convicted by the High Court
Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah's conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal
Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah's application for review dismissed by Chao Hick Tin SJ
Saminathan Selvaraju convicted by the High Court
Saminathan Selvaraju's conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal
Originating Application filed in the High Court
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Constitutionality of Statutory Presumptions
    • Outcome: The court held that the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act do not violate the constitutionally protected presumption of innocence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Violation of presumption of innocence
      • Shifting of burden of proof
  2. Right to Fair Trial
    • Outcome: The court held that the claimants' right to a fair trial was not violated.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Procedural fairness
      • Natural justice

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act should be read down.
  2. Prohibitory order against the execution of the death sentences.

9. Cause of Actions

  • Violation of Constitutional Rights

10. Practice Areas

  • Judicial Review
  • Criminal Appeals

11. Industries

  • Law Enforcement
  • Judiciary

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Woolmington v Director of Public ProsecutionsHouse of LordsYes[1935] AC 462United KingdomCited for the principle of presumption of innocence.
AOF v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited to support the presumption of innocence as an integral part of the Singapore criminal justice system.
Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 486SingaporeCited to support the presumption of innocence as an integral part of the Singapore criminal justice system.
HKSAR v Hung Chan WaHong Kong Court of Final AppealYes[2006] HKCU 1464Hong KongCited by the claimants for the proposition that presumptions should be read down to impose only an evidential burden.
R v LambertHouse of LordsYes[2002] 2 AC 545United KingdomCited by the claimants to support the argument that presumptions could lead to conviction despite reasonable doubt.
R v OakesSupreme Court of CanadaYes[1986] 1 SCR 103CanadaCited by the claimants to support the argument that presumptions could lead to conviction despite reasonable doubt.
Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public ProsecutorPrivy CouncilYes[1979–1980] SLR(R) 710SingaporeCited by the defendant as settled law that Parliament may legislate statutory provisions which shift the burden of proof to the accused in certain circumstances.
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the requirement of permission for a claimant seeking both prohibiting and declaratory orders.
Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 883SingaporeCited for the requirements for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the principle that sufficiency of interest is prima facie made out once there is a violation of constitutional rights.
Obeng Comfort v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 633SingaporeCited to explain the operation of section 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 257SingaporeCited to explain that it is not sufficient for the accused to raise a reasonable doubt where presumptions operate.
Munusamy Ramarmurth v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 70SingaporeCited to explain that it does not suffice to simply deny knowledge or suggest indifference as to the nature of the drugs.
Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu ChukwudiCourt of AppealYes[2015] SGCA 33SingaporeCited to explain that it is not sufficient for the Respondent to merely raise a “reasonable doubt” vis-à-vis the issue of knowledge.
Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 984SingaporeCited to explain that the burden on an accused person to rebut a presumption should not be so onerous that it becomes virtually impossible to discharge.
Gopu Jaya Raman v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 499SingaporeCited to explain that the burden on an accused person to rebut a presumption should not be so onerous that it becomes virtually impossible to discharge.
Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1119SingaporeCited to emphasize that s 18(2) operates as an ancillary provision to s 18(1).
Tan Seng Kee v Attorney–General and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 1347SingaporeCited for the requirements of 'law' under Art 9(1) of the Constitution.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 1059SingaporeCited to explain that it is not correct to import into the word “law” in Art 12(1) the requirement that law is in accordance with the fundamental rules of natural justice.
Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 26SingaporeCited for the test for contravention of Art 12(1) is the “reasonable classification” test.
AOF v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2002] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited to emphasize the need to convict an accused person based on the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 45SingaporeCited to describe the presumption of innocence as a central and fundamental moral assumption in criminal law.
XP v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 686SingaporeCited to describe the presumption of innocence as the cornerstone of the criminal justice system and the bedrock of the law of evidence.
Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 535SingaporeCited to reiterate that where the legal burden is on the accused, the accused’s evidential burden is to point to evidence that is capable of proving the existence of the relevant facts on the balance of probabilities.
Public Prosecutor v Sugianto bin Pardi and anotherHigh CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 865SingaporeCited to disclose a similar factual scenario in relation to s 18(1) of the MDA.
Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 1003SingaporeIllustration of the application of s 18(2) of the MDA.
Haw Tua Tau v PPCourt of AppealYes[1981] – [1982] SLR(R) 133SingaporeCited for the fundamental rules of natural justice are “an evolving concept”
Sweet v ParsleyHouse of LordsYes[1970] AC 132United KingdomCited for the use of statutory presumptions.
Salabiaku v FranceEuropean Court of Human RightsYesSalabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379EuropeCited for the principle that the Convention does not prohibit presumptions in principle.
HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai and anotherHong Kong Court of Final AppealYes[2006] HKCU 1465Hong KongCited for the principle that the presumption of innocence was not an absolute right and was capable of derogation where the derogation was justified.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2021 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act 1973Singapore
Government Proceedings Act 1956Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of SingaporeSingapore
Application of English Law Act 1993Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Presumption of innocence
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Statutory presumption
  • Legal burden
  • Evidential burden
  • Judicial review
  • Constitutionality
  • Fundamental liberties
  • Natural justice

15.2 Keywords

  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Presumption of Innocence
  • Constitutional Rights
  • Singapore High Court
  • Judicial Review
  • Death Penalty

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Constitutional Law90
Criminal Law85
Criminal Procedure70
Evidence60

16. Subjects

  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Presumption of Innocence
  • Judicial Review