SINGAPORE: All constitutional challenges against presumptions used in prosecuting drug cases have failed, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said on Tuesday (Sep 9).
These challenges mounted by prisoners on death row are
"The aim often appears to be to prevent the carrying out of the capital sentence that had been imposed on them," said the ministry in a statement.
On Aug 28, a rare five-judge coram of the Court of Appeal, which includes Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, dismissed an application from Jumaat Mohamed Sayed, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren, Datchinamurthy Kataiah and Saminathan Selvaraju, who were each sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
The four had on Jun 6, 2023 filed an application to the Court of Appeal seeking to reinstate a legal challenge against the constitutionality of the statutory presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The apex court dismissed the application as without merit.
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, a person proven to have a specific quantity of a controlled drug is presumed to have had it for the purpose of trafficking, unless proven otherwise.
Another two presumptions relate to possession and knowledge of the controlled drug.
A person proven to have had anything - or the keys of anything - containing a controlled drug; or the keys to a location that contained controlled drugs, is presumed to have had the drug in his possession.
A person who is proven or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession is presumed to know the nature of the drug.
The four convicts had contended that the presumptions related to possession and knowledge violated Singapore's Constitution and the principle of the presumption of innocence - that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
As such, they had argued that the statutory presumptions should be struck down as void or read down in a manner that would conform with the Constitution.
Dismissing this, the Court of Appeal found that the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act were in line with the Constitution.
In its statement on Tuesday, MHA highlighted how the appellate court recognised how these provisions are an "essential part of the government's toolkit against drug trafficking" and are consistent with the fundamental rules of natural justice.
These provisions also allow prosecutors to "overcome the evidential difficulty of proving the state of mind of the accused person, which is often exclusively within his knowledge", said the ministry, referring to the judgment delivered by Chief Justice Menon.
The other judges of the coram are Justice of the Court of Appeal Belinda Ang, Judges of the Appellate Division Woo Bih Li and See Kee Oon and Senior Judge Judith Prakash.
MHA noted that Home Affairs Minister and then-Law Minister K Shanmugam had set out the government's position on the Misuse of Drugs Act presumptions in a ministerial statement
Mr Shanmugam said at the time that there was "no reason" to amend these presumptions, which date back to the enactment of the anti-drug law in 1973.
These presumptions in drug cases are necessary to protect Singapore from drug trafficking as they dealt with the "practical challenges" in proving facts that were often only known by the accused person.
Hence, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the onus is on the accused person to prove he did not know that what was found to be in his possession were drugs.
"While many other countries have faced huge difficulties in combatting drugs, Singapore has been able to maintain one of the lowest rates of drug abuse in the world," Mr Shanmugam said then.
The four inmates had filed appeals against their conviction and sentence for drug trafficking, but these were dismissed.
They filed subsequent applications, one of which sought a declaration that the presumptions of possession and knowledge should be "read down" to comply with the Constitution and the presumption of innocence. The application was also to obtain an order against their death sentences.
This application was dismissed, so
The inmates' latest bid to the Court of Appeal was to restore their Dec 23 application.
The team representing the four death row inmates included National University of Singapore's Assistant Professor Marcus Teo and lawyers Eugene Thuraisingam and Suang Wijaya.
The Attorney-General argued that the presumptions were compatible with the presumption of innocence because they did not displace the prosecution’s overall legal burden to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
It also argued that the presumptions were not contrary to the Constitution, which does not include the "presumption of innocence”.
Among its findings, the apex court ruled that the presumptions did displace the prosecution's legal burden to prove the accused person's guilt.
The legal burden remained with the prosecution, which has to establish each element of the offence, said Chief Justice Menon.
The five-judge coram also found that the fundamental rules of natural justice were consistent with the prosecution’s ability to rely on the presumptions to establish the offence.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal also noted: "It is plain beyond doubt that the general approach towards drug offences taken by parliament over the years has been influenced by its strong belief in the necessity of eliminating drug trafficking and abuse in Singapore as best it can."
"Further, it is clear from these debates that parliament has taken the view that the (Misuse of Drugs Act) presumptions specifically are an essential part of the toolkit that is deployed by our enforcement agencies in order to keep the scourge of drug trafficking within confines."
The Court of Appeal then
Continue reading...
These challenges mounted by prisoners on death row are
"The aim often appears to be to prevent the carrying out of the capital sentence that had been imposed on them," said the ministry in a statement.
On Aug 28, a rare five-judge coram of the Court of Appeal, which includes Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, dismissed an application from Jumaat Mohamed Sayed, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren, Datchinamurthy Kataiah and Saminathan Selvaraju, who were each sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
The four had on Jun 6, 2023 filed an application to the Court of Appeal seeking to reinstate a legal challenge against the constitutionality of the statutory presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The apex court dismissed the application as without merit.
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, a person proven to have a specific quantity of a controlled drug is presumed to have had it for the purpose of trafficking, unless proven otherwise.
Another two presumptions relate to possession and knowledge of the controlled drug.
A person proven to have had anything - or the keys of anything - containing a controlled drug; or the keys to a location that contained controlled drugs, is presumed to have had the drug in his possession.
A person who is proven or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession is presumed to know the nature of the drug.
The four convicts had contended that the presumptions related to possession and knowledge violated Singapore's Constitution and the principle of the presumption of innocence - that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
As such, they had argued that the statutory presumptions should be struck down as void or read down in a manner that would conform with the Constitution.
Dismissing this, the Court of Appeal found that the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act were in line with the Constitution.
Related:
In its statement on Tuesday, MHA highlighted how the appellate court recognised how these provisions are an "essential part of the government's toolkit against drug trafficking" and are consistent with the fundamental rules of natural justice.
These provisions also allow prosecutors to "overcome the evidential difficulty of proving the state of mind of the accused person, which is often exclusively within his knowledge", said the ministry, referring to the judgment delivered by Chief Justice Menon.
The other judges of the coram are Justice of the Court of Appeal Belinda Ang, Judges of the Appellate Division Woo Bih Li and See Kee Oon and Senior Judge Judith Prakash.
MHA noted that Home Affairs Minister and then-Law Minister K Shanmugam had set out the government's position on the Misuse of Drugs Act presumptions in a ministerial statement
Mr Shanmugam said at the time that there was "no reason" to amend these presumptions, which date back to the enactment of the anti-drug law in 1973.
These presumptions in drug cases are necessary to protect Singapore from drug trafficking as they dealt with the "practical challenges" in proving facts that were often only known by the accused person.
Hence, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the onus is on the accused person to prove he did not know that what was found to be in his possession were drugs.
"While many other countries have faced huge difficulties in combatting drugs, Singapore has been able to maintain one of the lowest rates of drug abuse in the world," Mr Shanmugam said then.
APPEAL DISMISSED
The four inmates had filed appeals against their conviction and sentence for drug trafficking, but these were dismissed.
They filed subsequent applications, one of which sought a declaration that the presumptions of possession and knowledge should be "read down" to comply with the Constitution and the presumption of innocence. The application was also to obtain an order against their death sentences.
This application was dismissed, so
The inmates' latest bid to the Court of Appeal was to restore their Dec 23 application.
The team representing the four death row inmates included National University of Singapore's Assistant Professor Marcus Teo and lawyers Eugene Thuraisingam and Suang Wijaya.
The Attorney-General argued that the presumptions were compatible with the presumption of innocence because they did not displace the prosecution’s overall legal burden to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
It also argued that the presumptions were not contrary to the Constitution, which does not include the "presumption of innocence”.
Among its findings, the apex court ruled that the presumptions did displace the prosecution's legal burden to prove the accused person's guilt.
The legal burden remained with the prosecution, which has to establish each element of the offence, said Chief Justice Menon.
The five-judge coram also found that the fundamental rules of natural justice were consistent with the prosecution’s ability to rely on the presumptions to establish the offence.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal also noted: "It is plain beyond doubt that the general approach towards drug offences taken by parliament over the years has been influenced by its strong belief in the necessity of eliminating drug trafficking and abuse in Singapore as best it can."
"Further, it is clear from these debates that parliament has taken the view that the (Misuse of Drugs Act) presumptions specifically are an essential part of the toolkit that is deployed by our enforcement agencies in order to keep the scourge of drug trafficking within confines."
The Court of Appeal then
Continue reading...