Iskandar bin Rahmat v AG: LASCO Policy & Constitutional Rights
The High Court of Singapore dismissed an application by Iskandar bin Rahmat and others, challenging the Legal Aid Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) policy of not assigning counsel for post-appeal applications, claiming it is inconsistent with Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution. The Attorney-General's application to strike out the application was granted, with the court finding that the LASCO policy does not violate the applicants' constitutional rights.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Application dismissed; application to strike out granted.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on LASCO policy consistency with constitutional rights. Application to strike out granted.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|
4. Facts
- The applicants are convicted of capital offenses and awaiting capital punishment.
- LASCO has a policy to not assign counsel for post-appeal applications.
- Applicants applied for a declaration that the LASCO policy is unconstitutional.
- The Attorney-General applied to strike out the applicants' application.
- Applicants argued the LASCO policy infringes on their right to access justice.
- Applicants claimed the LASCO policy has been applied inconsistently.
- Applicants argued LASCO is their only recourse to legal aid post-appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General, Originating Application No 306 of 2024 (Summons No 1124 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 122
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1st Applicant’s Affidavit filed | |
| Permission granted for applicants to file a further affidavit | |
| Applicants filed a supplementary affidavit | |
| SAR directed applicants to file submissions by 6 May 2024 | |
| Respondent’s Submissions on Striking Out Application filed | |
| Hearing for Summons No 1124 of 2024 | |
| Oral application for adjournment made by applicants | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Right to Counsel
- Outcome: The court held that the LASCO policy does not violate the applicants' right to counsel under Article 9(3).
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 1 SLR(R) 853
- Equality Before the Law
- Outcome: The court held that the LASCO policy does not violate the applicants' right to equality before the law under Article 12(1).
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 809
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court granted the Attorney-General's application to strike out the originating application.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 2 SLR 1018
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the LASCO policy is unconstitutional
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 9 of the Constitution
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Striking Out
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether an action has some chance of success in a striking out application. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether an action has some chance of success in a striking out application. |
| Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] 4 SLR 1133 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proof on the applicant in a striking out application. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 11 | Singapore | Mentioned in relation to the timeline of events. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 346 | Singapore | Mentioned in relation to the timeline of events. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of finality in criminal cases. |
| Balasundaram s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 853 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the right to counsel under Art 9 is not an unqualified right. |
| Mohamed bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1980] 2 MLJ 201 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that Art 9(3) does not confer a right to counsel in every case. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 668 | Singapore | Cited to reject the argument that an order of personal costs would deter lawyers. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that “law” in Art 9(1) includes natural justice. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Cheng Kim Kuan | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 350 | Singapore | Mentioned in relation to the suspension of lawyers. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy | High Court | Yes | [2023] 4 SLR 1760 | Singapore | Mentioned in relation to the suspension of lawyers. |
| Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 67 | Singapore | Mentioned as an instance where LASCO counsel was allegedly assigned post-2017. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining whether the LASCO policy breaches Art 12(1). |
| Attorney-General v Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 46 | Singapore | Cited regarding actions filed as a ‘stopgap’ measure to delay sentencing. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 9, Rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 9, Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 9, Rule 16(3) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Legal Aid Scheme for Capital Offences
- LASCO policy
- Post-appeal applications
- Right to counsel
- Equality before the law
- Striking out
- Originating application
- Capital punishment
15.2 Keywords
- LASCO
- constitutional rights
- legal aid
- capital punishment
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 90 |
| Legal Aid | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Wills and Probate | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure