Rahimi v Attorney-General: Constitutional Challenge to Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and 35 other prisoners awaiting capital punishment applied to the High Court of Singapore for declarations that certain provisions of the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 were inconsistent with Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution. The Attorney-General applied to strike out the application. Hoo Sheau Peng J dismissed the originating application, finding that the applicants lacked standing and that the claim had no chance of success.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court dismisses challenge to PACC Act by prisoners awaiting capital punishment, finding no violation of constitutional rights.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Roslan bin Bakar | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Rosman bin Abdullah | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ramdhan bin Lajis | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lingkesvaran Rajendaren | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Reduan bin Mustaffar | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Hamir bin Laka | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Jumadi bin Abdullah | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Salleh bin Hamid | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Zamri bin Mohd Tahir | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Gunalan Goval | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Steve Crocker | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Shisham bin Abdul Rahman | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chandroo Subramaniam | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sanjay Krishnan | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chong Hoon Cheong | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Teo Ghim Heng | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Kay Yong | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Kishor Kumar a/l Raguan | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Saminathan Selvaraju | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Pausi bin Jefridin | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| A Steven Raj s/o Paul Raj | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Hamzah bin Ibrahim | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| The Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application to Strike Out Granted | Won | Chew Shi Jun James of Attorney-General’s Chambers J Jayaletchmi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Tze Etsuko of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chew Shi Jun James | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| J Jayaletchmi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Tze Etsuko | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- 36 prisoners awaiting capital punishment filed an application challenging the constitutionality of the PACC Act.
- The PACC Act introduces a new procedure for post-appeal applications in capital cases.
- The applicants claimed that sections 60G(7)(d) and 60G(8) of the SCJA, introduced by the PACC Act, are inconsistent with Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution.
- The Attorney-General applied to strike out the application on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
- The PACC Act has been passed by Parliament but has not yet come into force.
- The impugned provisions require applicants to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success to obtain permission for a PACC application and allow for summary dismissal of such applications.
5. Formal Citations
- Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General, Originating Application No 987 of 2023(Summons No 3096 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 346
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| PACC Act passed in Parliament | |
| PACC Act assented to by the President | |
| PACC Act published in the Government Gazette | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that the applicants lacked locus standi to bring the constitutional challenge.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 390
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112
- [2013] 4 SLR 1
- [2022] 1 SLR 1347
- Violation of Article 9 of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that the impugned provisions did not violate Article 9 of the Constitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 3 SLR 135
- [1981-1982] SLR(R) 133
- [2022] 2 SLR 1197
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that the impugned provisions did not violate Article 12 of the Constitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 26
- [2021] 1 SLR 809
8. Remedies Sought
- Declarations that sections 60G(7)(d) and 60G(8) of the SCJA are void for being inconsistent with Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution.
9. Cause of Actions
- Constitutional Challenge
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Striking Out
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable test in a striking out application based on the ground that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the applicants to show that they have a viable legal claim. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney General | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 390 | Singapore | Cited for the elements which must be met for an applicant to possess locus standi to bring an action for declaratory relief in constitutional challenges and the argument that the very existence of an allegedly unconstitutional law in the statute books may suffice to show a violation of an applicant’s constitutional rights. |
| Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] 4 SLR 1133 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden falls on the applicant in a striking out application to show that there is no reasonable cause of action. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the three elements which must be met for an applicant to possess locus standi to bring an action for declaratory relief in constitutional challenges. |
| Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the three elements which must be met for an applicant to possess locus standi to bring an action for declaratory relief in constitutional challenges. |
| Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1347 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even though a law might be on the books and might gain or regain its legal effect upon some act on the part of the Executive, until it did, and so long as it remains legally unenforceable, there can be no real and credible threat of infringement of rights, and consequently no standing to challenge its constitutionality. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that concluded appeals should not be readily susceptible to challenge, even in cases involving the death penalty. |
| Haw Tua Tau and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981-1982] SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the right to a fair trial and access to justice cannot be looked at in isolation, but must be considered in light of the part which it plays in the complete judicial process. |
| Adeeb Ahmed Khan s/o Iqbal Ahmed Khan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1197 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appeal’s prospect of success is a factor in deciding whether to grant permission for it to be filed out of time. |
| R v Haevischer | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2023] SCC 11 | Canada | Cited for the principle that in the criminal context, there should be summary dismissal of any application only if it is “manifestly frivolous”. |
| Newton, David Christopher v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 266 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of oral submissions. |
| 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 one approach to the reasonable classification test under Art 12(1) of the Constitution. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for one approach to the reasonable classification test under Art 12(1) of the Constitution. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 9 Rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 (No. 41 of 2022) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act
- PACC Act
- PACC application
- PACC permission
- Reasonable prospect of success
- Summary dismissal
- Article 9
- Article 12
- Locus standi
- Reasonable classification test
15.2 Keywords
- constitutional challenge
- post-appeal applications
- capital punishment
- fair trial
- equality before the law
- striking out
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 85 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law