Roslan bin Bakar v Attorney-General of Singapore: Application for Stay of Execution in Capital Case
Roslan bin Bakar, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 14 November 2024 for permission to make a post-appeal application in a capital case, seeking a stay of his scheduled execution. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Tay Yong Kwang, dismissed the application, finding no basis to grant permission or stay the execution.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for stay of execution by Roslan bin Bakar, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment. The court dismissed the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roslan bin Bakar | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General of Singapore | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Christina Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Daphne Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christina Koh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Daphne Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Mr. Roslan was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death.
- Mr. Roslan has made multiple unsuccessful appeals and applications for re-sentencing.
- Mr. Roslan's petition for clemency was rejected.
- Mr. Roslan was scheduled for execution on 15 November 2024.
- Mr. Roslan filed an application for a stay of execution, which was dismissed.
- Mr. Roslan argued that he did not have sufficient time to seek advice and prepare a fresh clemency petition.
- Mr. Roslan argued that the reduced renotification period policy violated his constitutional rights.
5. Formal Citations
- Roslan bin Bakar v Attorney-General, OAC No 1 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 51
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Roslan and Mr. Pausi were convicted and sentenced to death on drug trafficking charges. | |
| Mr. Roslan's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Mr. Roslan applied to adduce new evidence and seek a retrial. This application was dismissed. | |
| Mr. Roslan applied for re-sentencing pursuant to s 33B of the MDA. | |
| Mr. Roslan's application for re-sentencing was dismissed by the High Court. | |
| Mr. Roslan's appeal against the High Court's decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Mr. Roslan’s petition to the President for clemency was rejected. | |
| Mr. Roslan and Mr. Pausi filed HC/OS 139/2022 seeking declarations that their execution would be in breach of their rights under Arts 9(1) and 12(1). | |
| HC/OS 139/2022 was dismissed. | |
| Mr. Roslan and Mr. Pausi filed HC/OS 149/2022 for declarations that the death penalty for drug offences under the MDA is unconstitutional. | |
| OS 149 was dismissed. | |
| The Court of Appeal granted declarations that the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Singapore Prison Services had acted unlawfully by requesting and by disclosing the appellants’ correspondence. | |
| The President of the Republic of Singapore issued a new order for Mr. Roslan and Mr. Pausi to be executed on 15 November 2024. | |
| The Warrants of Execution were issued. | |
| Mr. Roslan was informed of the date of execution. | |
| Mr. Roslan filed the present application. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Roslan's application. |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Execution
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for a stay of execution.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2024] SGCA 39
- CA/CM 6/2019
- [2022] SGCA 46
- Equal Protection of the Law
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant's rights to equal protection under the law were not violated.
- Category: Constitutional
- Right to Life and Personal Liberty
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant's right to life and personal liberty were not violated.
- Category: Constitutional
8. Remedies Sought
- Stay of execution
- Permission to file a post-appeal application
- Quashing order of the notice of execution
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Pausi bin Jefridin and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 121 | Singapore | Cited for the initial conviction and sentencing of Mr. Roslan and Mr. Pausi. |
| Roslan bin Bakar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1023 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of Mr. Roslan's application to adduce new evidence and seek a retrial. |
| Roslan bin Bakar v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 291 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of Mr. Roslan's application for re-sentencing. |
| Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 1127 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of applications by Mr. Roslan and Mr. Pausi to review the Court of Appeal's decision on resentencing. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 93 | Singapore | Cited regarding the withdrawal of HC/OS 664/2021. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 934 | Singapore | Cited regarding the dismissal of OS 825. |
| Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of the appeal in CA/CA 6/2022. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Cited for allowing the appeal partially in CA 30, granting declarations that the AGC and the SPS had acted unlawfully by requesting and by disclosing the appellants’ correspondence. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited regarding the dismissal of an appeal against the striking out of HC/OC 166/2022. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2024] 4 SLR 331 | Singapore | Cited regarding the striking out of OA 987. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 414 | Singapore | Cited regarding the dismissal of an appeal against the striking out of OA 987. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 122 | Singapore | Cited regarding the striking out of OA 306. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that Art 22P(2) of the Constitution does not provide for any right on the part of the offender in a death sentence case to file a clemency petition. |
| Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | CA/CM 6/2019 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a prisoner ought to have a reasonable opportunity to consider and take advice on whether he had any grounds on which to challenge the clemency decision. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the pronouncement that the death sentence by a court means that the eventual deprivation of the prisoner’s life would not be a violation of Art 9(1), provided that it is carried out in accordance with law. |
| Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 46 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the mere fact of a pending proceeding does not necessarily constitute a “relevant” pending proceeding that warrants protection under Art 12(1). |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 40 | Singapore | Cited for summarising the concerns in OS 972 regarding the provisions that relate to the requirement that the Court of Appeal considers the reasonable prospect of success of a PACC application. |
| Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 38 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the considerations in s 60G(7) of the SCJA mirror the considerations that the appellate court must consider under s 394H(6A) of the CPC in deciding whether or not to grant an application for permission to make a review application. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 24A r 2(4)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021 (2020 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 (No. 41 of 2022) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 60F of the SCJA | Singapore |
| s 60G(1) of the SCJA | Singapore |
| s 60G(7) of the SCJA | Singapore |
| s 60G(4) | Singapore |
| s 60G(8) of the SCJA | Singapore |
| s 60G(7)(d) | Singapore |
| s 60G(8) | Singapore |
| s 60H(6) | Singapore |
| s 60I(1) | Singapore |
| s 313(2) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 313(1)(f) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 313(1)(g) of the CPC | Singapore |
| Art 22P of the Constitution | Singapore |
| Art 9(1) of the Constitution | Singapore |
| Art 12(1) of the Constitution | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Post-appeal application in a capital case
- PACC application
- Stay of execution
- Clemency petition
- Reduced renotification period policy
- Pannir Selvam period
- Abuse of process
15.2 Keywords
- Capital punishment
- Stay of execution
- Drug trafficking
- Constitutional rights
- Clemency
- Singapore law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 90 |
| Stay of Execution | 85 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Injunctions | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Procedure