Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor: Review Application and Stay of Execution
Iskandar bin Rahmat, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 3 February 2025 for permission to review his conviction and for a stay of execution, which was scheduled for 5 February 2025. His initial conviction on two charges under s 300(a) of the Penal Code was in 2015, and his appeal was dismissed in 2017. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no merit in his claims of inadequate legal representation or excessive judicial interference and concluding that there were no grounds to challenge the initial findings or warrant a review.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for review of conviction and stay of execution was dismissed. The court found no miscarriage of justice or grounds for review.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Jun Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Iskandar bin Rahmat of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Jun Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- Mr. Iskandar was convicted on two charges under s 300(a) of the Penal Code.
- Mr. Iskandar appealed against his conviction and sentence, but the appeal was dismissed.
- Mr. Iskandar filed multiple post-appeal applications, all of which were unsuccessful.
- Mr. Iskandar filed the present application seeking permission to review his conviction and a stay of execution.
- Mr. Iskandar claimed inadequate legal assistance and excessive judicial interference.
- The President issued an order for Mr. Iskandar to be executed on 5 February 2025.
5. Formal Citations
- Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 2 of 2025, [2025] SGCA 4
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Iskandar was convicted after trial in HC/CC 50/2015 on two charges under s 300(a) punishable under s 302(1) of the Penal Code. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed CCA 39. | |
| Mr Iskandar’s first petition for clemency to the President of the Republic of Singapore was rejected. | |
| Mr Iskandar applied in HC/OS 716/2019 for an order to review the decision of the Law Society’s Inquiry Committee. | |
| Law Society’s Inquiry Committee dismissed his complaint against his trial lawyers. | |
| Mr Iskandar filed HC/OS 975/2020 together with 10 other prison inmates seeking pre-action discovery and pre-action interrogatories against the Attorney-General and the Superintendent of Changi Prison (Institution A1). | |
| OS 975 was dismissed by the High Court. | |
| Mr Iskandar filed an application in CA/CM 21/2021 to be allowed to intervene in a separate matter CA/CCA 36/2020 (Teo Ghim Heng v Public Prosecutor). | |
| A group of 13 inmates, including Mr Iskandar, filed HC/OS 664/2021, an application under O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed). | |
| The Court of Appeal dismissed CM 21. | |
| Leave was granted for OS 664 to be withdrawn. | |
| Mr Iskandar and 12 other PACPs filed HC/OS 188/2022. | |
| OS 188 was dismissed, save for nominal damages which were awarded to three of the plaintiffs, including Mr Iskandar. | |
| OC 166 was struck out. | |
| An appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 4 August 2022 in CA/CA 31/2022. | |
| Mr Iskandar, together with 35 other inmates, filed HC/OA 987/2023. | |
| OA 987 was struck out. | |
| Hearing HC/SUM 2898/2024 on 20 January 2025, in which the Attorney-General applied to strike out OA 972. | |
| The appeal against this decision in CA/CA 1/2024 was dismissed. | |
| A group of 36 inmates (including Mr Iskandar) filed HC/OA 306/2024. | |
| OA 306 was struck out. | |
| Mr Iskandar’s appeal against this decision (in CA/CA 38/2024) was dismissed. | |
| 31 PACPs (including Mr Iskandar) filed HC/OA 972/2024. | |
| He submitted his second petition for clemency on 17 November 2024. | |
| The President issued an order for Mr Iskandar to be executed on 5 February 2025 pursuant to s 313(1)(f) of the CPC. | |
| Mr Iskandar filed the present application with his accompanying affidavit in support dated 3 February 2025 and two sets of detailed written submissions. | |
| The respondent’s written submissions in reply were filed today. | |
| Scheduled execution date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Inadequate Legal Assistance
- Outcome: The court found no merit in the claims of inadequate legal assistance.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 1 SLR 590
- Excessive Judicial Interference
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of excessive judicial interference.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of a miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission to review conviction
- Stay of execution
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Iskandar bin Rahmat | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 310 | Singapore | Sets out the grounds of decision of the High Court in the original trial where Mr. Iskandar was convicted. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Iskandar's appeal against his conviction and sentence. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 40 | Singapore | High Court dismissed OS 716, Mr. Iskandar's application for an order to review the decision of the Law Society’s Inquiry Committee. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 590 | Singapore | Court of Appeal dismissed CA/CA 9/2020, Mr. Iskandar's appeal against the dismissal of OS 716. The court rejected allegations of misconduct by Mr. Iskandar's trial lawyers. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 698 | Singapore | High Court dismissed OS 975, which Mr. Iskandar filed with other inmates seeking pre-action discovery. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1151 | Singapore | Court of Appeal dismissed CM 21, Mr. Iskandar's application to intervene in a separate matter. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 93 | Singapore | Leave was granted for OS 664 to be withdrawn. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 2 SLR 588 | Singapore | Court of Appeal allowed 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 | Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the striking out of OC 166. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2024] 4 SLR 331 | Singapore | OA 987 was struck out on 5 December 2023 |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 414 | Singapore | The appeal against this decision in CA/CA 1/2024 was dismissed on 27 March 2024 |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2024] 5 SLR 1290 | Singapore | OA 306 was struck out on 20 May 2024 |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Mr Iskandar claims that the prosecution was guilty of impropriety and of breaching its obligations under Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 984 |
| Mohammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Mr Iskandar claims that the prosecution was guilty of impropriety and of breaching its obligations under Mohammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2011] 3 SLR 1205. |
| Roszaidi bin Osman v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 222 | Singapore | Mr Iskandar’s reliance on Roszaidi bin Osman v Public Prosecutor [2023] 1 SLR 222 is misplaced as this case does not support his contentions. |
| Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 1271 | Singapore | 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 to grant an application for permission to make a review application: Mohammad Azwan bin Bohari v Public Prosecutor [2024] 1 SLR 1271 |
| Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 1 SLR 1127 | Singapore | Where s 394H of the CPC is concerned, the Court of Appeal emphasised in Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor and other matters [2024] 1 SLR 1127 (at [57]) that the applicant must demonstrate that the material he intends to rely on is almost certain to satisfy the requirements in s 394J of the CPC. |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 40 | Singapore | Nonetheless, I note that in Azwan and in Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 40 (“Sulaiman”), the court held that OA 972 had no bearing on the respective applicants’ conviction and sentence |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(6)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Section[s] 394(H) and 394(I) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 300(a) punishable under s 302(1) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Arts 12(1) and 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 2(b) of the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022 (No. 41 of 2022) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 60G(7)(d) and s 60G(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 313(1)(f) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394K(2)(b) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(a) to 394J(3)(c) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394H(6A) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394G of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394K of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394H(3) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(c) of the CPC | Singapore |
| ss 394H(10) and 394I(13) of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the CPC | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Review application
- Stay of execution
- Capital punishment
- Miscarriage of justice
- Inadequate legal assistance
- Excessive judicial interference
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal
- Appeal
- Review
- Stay of Execution
- Singapore
- Iskandar bin Rahmat
- Public Prosecutor
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Review | 70 |
| Litigation | 60 |
| Civil Litigation | 40 |
| Constitutional Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Appeals
- Review
- Sentencing