Masoud Rahimi v Attorney-General: Constitutional Challenge to Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act
The Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others against the High Court's decision to strike out their constitutional challenge against two provisions of the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022. The court, led by Sundaresh Menon CJ, found that the appellants lacked standing because the challenged provisions were not yet in operation, and therefore, their constitutional rights had not been violated. The court also noted that the PACC Act applies prospectively and does not affect applications filed before it comes into force.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex tempore judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal dismisses constitutional challenge to the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act, finding appellants lacked standing as the Act was not yet in force.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Roslan bin Bakar | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Rosman bin Abdullah | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Ramdhan bin Lajis | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Lingkesvaran Rajendaren | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohammad Reduan bin Mustaffar | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Hamir bin Laka | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Jumadi bin Abdullah | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad Salleh bin Hamid | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Zamri bin Mohd Tahir | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Gunalan Goval | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Steve Crocker | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Shisham bin Abdul Rahman | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Chandroo Subramaniam | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Sanjay Krishnan | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Chong Hoon Cheong | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Teo Ghim Heng | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Kay Yong | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Kishor Kumar a/l Raguan | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Chew Shi Jun James of Attorney-General’s Chambers J Jayaletchmi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teo Meng Hui Jocelyn of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Saminathan Selvaraju | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Pausi bin Jefridin | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| A Steven Raj s/o Paul Raj | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Hamzah bin Ibrahim | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chew Shi Jun James | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| J Jayaletchmi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Meng Hui Jocelyn | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions of the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022.
- The PACC Act introduces new provisions to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 for post-appeal applications in capital cases.
- The challenged provisions concern the requirements for obtaining permission to make a PACC application and the possibility of summary disposal without an oral hearing.
- The PACC Act has not been brought into force by notification in the Gazette.
- The appellants argued that the provisions are inconsistent with their rights under Arts 9 and 12 of the Constitution.
- The High Court struck out the appellants' challenge for lack of standing.
- The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court's analysis and dismissed the appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 1 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 (Act 41 of 2022) enacted | |
| Originating Application No 987 of 2023 filed | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Standing to bring a constitutional challenge
- Outcome: The court held that the appellants lacked standing to bring the constitutional challenge because the challenged provisions of the PACC Act were not yet in operation.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112
- [2012] 4 SLR 476
- Constitutionality of s 60G(7)(d) of the SCJA
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the constitutionality of s 60G(7)(d) of the SCJA.
- Category: Substantive
- Constitutionality of s 60G(8) of the SCJA
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the constitutionality of s 60G(8) of the SCJA.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the challenged provisions of the PACC Act are unconstitutional
9. Cause of Actions
- Constitutional challenge
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 requirements for standing in constitutional challenges. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited regarding the existence of an allegedly unconstitutional law on the statute books sufficing to show a violation of a constitutional right. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| s 60G(7)(d) of the SCJA | Singapore |
| s 60G(8) of the SCJA | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act
- PACC Act
- PACC procedure
- PACC permission
- Standing
- Constitutional challenge
- Article 9
- Article 12
15.2 Keywords
- Constitutional Law
- Judicial Review
- PACC Act
- Standing
- Singapore
- Capital Cases
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 90 |
| Judicial Review | 90 |
| Striking out | 85 |
| Civil Procedure | 85 |
| Appellate Practice | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 15 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
| Criminal Review | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Judicial Review
- Civil Procedure