Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed v Attorney-General: Extension of Time for Appeal & Constitutionality of MDA Presumptions
Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, and Saminathan Selvaraju applied to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore for reinstatement of their appeal and an extension of time to file documents. The appeal concerned the constitutionality of presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Steven Chong JCA dismissed the application, finding no merit in the underlying appeal and that the applicants were attempting to circumvent the requirements for criminal review.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for appeal reinstatement and extension of time to file documents was dismissed. The court found no merit in challenging the Misuse of Drugs Act presumptions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Lingkesvaran Rajendaren | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Saminathan Selvaraju | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Hay Hung Chun, Claire Poh, Theong Li Han |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Claire Poh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Theong Li Han | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicants were convicted and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty under s 33(1) of the MDA.
- Applicants sought a declaration that the presumptions in ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA are unconstitutional.
- Applicants' appeals against their convictions were dismissed between February 2016 and May 2020.
- The applicants filed the Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision on 23 December 2022.
- The time for filing the Documents in CA 2 lapsed on 14 March 2023.
- The applicants filed SUM 8 seeking reinstatement of the appeal and an extension of time.
5. Formal Citations
- Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 2 of 2023 (Summons No 8 of 2023), [2023] SGCA 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judge provided reasons for dismissing OA 480 in Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General [2022] SGHC 291. | |
| Applicants filed the Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. | |
| Supreme Court Registry informed the applicants that the Record of Proceedings was available. | |
| Time for filing the Documents in CA 2 lapsed; CA 2 was deemed withdrawn. | |
| Case Management Conference. | |
| Letter sent to parties regarding the deemed withdrawal of CA 2. | |
| SUM 8 was filed. | |
| Court hearing. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an extension of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Constitutionality of statutory presumptions in Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court found no arguable case that Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution were infringed by the presumptions under ss 18(1) and (2) of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710
- Review of Concluded Criminal Appeals
- Outcome: The court held that the proper procedure to challenge the convictions was by way of a criminal review application under s 394H of the CPC or by invoking the inherent power of the court.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that presumptions in ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA are unconstitutional
- Prohibiting order against the execution of death sentences
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
- Constitutional Challenge
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 291 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment being appealed against. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament may legislate statutory provisions which shift the burden of proof to the accused under certain circumstances. |
| Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 561 | Singapore | Cited to suggest that the threshold for the merits requirement with respect to CA 2 is a low one. |
| Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd v Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC(A) 14 | Singapore | Cited for factors relevant to the court’s consideration of the merits of SUM 8. |
| Bin Hee Heng v Ho Siew Lan (acting as executrix and trustee in the estate of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 4 | Singapore | Cited for factors relevant to the court’s consideration of the merits of SUM 8. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the application must disclose a “legitimate basis for the exercise of [the appellate court’s] power of review”. |
| Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requirements of sufficiency and miscarriage of justice are a composite requirement under s 394J(2) of the CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 452 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the alternative basis of invoking the court’s inherent power to reopen a concluded criminal appeal is no different from that under the statutory regime. |
| A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 9 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the material put forth by an applicant does not satisfy the requirements set out under s 394J of the CPC, the court cannot exercise its inherent power to reopen a concluded criminal appeal on the basis of the same material. |
| Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 927 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is impermissible to file more than one review application in respect of any decision of an appellate court. |
| Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 13 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is impermissible to file more than one review application in respect of any decision of an appellate court. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited as an example of remedies which are capable of being the subject matter of judicial review. |
| Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1141 | Singapore | Cited as an example of remedies which are capable of being the subject matter of judicial review. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 773 | Singapore | Cited as an example of remedies which are capable of being the subject matter of judicial review. |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 30 | Singapore | Cited as the prior review application filed by Datchinamurthy under s 394H was dismissed by this court on 5 April 2021 |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of innocence
- Constitutionality
- Extension of time
- Criminal review
- Judicial review
- Mandatory death penalty
15.2 Keywords
- extension of time
- misuse of drugs act
- constitutionality
- criminal review
- judicial review
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law