LITT
Try LITT free
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General [2025] SGHC 20
The court held that the Applicants lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the PACC Act Regime because they had not filed any applications subject to the Impugned Provisions at the time of commencing the action, rendering the challenge theoretical.
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General [2023] SGHC 346
The court struck out an originating application challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the PACC Act that had not yet come into force, finding that the applicants lacked locus standi as there was no real controversy or violation of personal rights.
TAN SENG KEE v ATTORNEY GENERAL
The court held that s 377A is unenforceable in its entirety based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations arising from the Government's and the Attorney-General's representations regarding non-enforcement.
Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General and other appeals [2022] SGCA 16
The Court of Appeal held that s 377A is unenforceable in its entirety due to the political compromise reached in 2007 and the representations made by the Attorney-General in 2018, which created a substantive legitimate expectation of non-enforcement.
HOWE WEN KHONG ROCKY & 6 Ors v ATTORNEY-GENERAL CHAMBERS
The Applicants lacked locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty as they failed to demonstrate a violation of their personal constitutional rights or any special interest beyond that of the general public.