Case Details
- Citation: [2024] SGHC 122
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2024-05-20
- Judges: Dedar Singh Gill J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Iskandar bin Rahmat and others
- Defendant/Respondent: Attorney-General
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Striking out, Constitutional Law — Fundamental liberties, Constitutional Law — Equality before the law
- Statutes Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code
- Cases Cited: [2022] SGCA 46, [2023] SGHC 346, [2023] SGHC 350, [2024] SGCA 11, [2024] SGHC 122
- Judgment Length: 21 pages, 5,706 words
Summary
In this case, a group of 36 applicants who were convicted of capital offenses and awaiting execution challenged the Legal Aid Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) policy of not assigning LASCO counsel for post-appeal applications. The applicants sought a declaration that this policy is unconstitutional under Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution of Singapore and claimed damages. The Attorney-General applied to strike out the applicants' originating application, arguing that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The 36 applicants are all individuals convicted of capital offenses and currently awaiting execution. They allege that LASCO, which provides legal assistance to accused persons charged with capital offenses, has a policy of not assigning LASCO counsel for the purposes of post-appeal applications (the "LASCO policy").
The applicants provided various evidence to demonstrate the existence of the LASCO policy, including a court email correspondence stating that "the Supreme Court Registry's policy is not to assign LASCO Counsel for filing post appeal applications". They also pointed to instances where their requests for LASCO counsel in post-appeal applications were rejected by the court.
In response, the Attorney-General did not contest the existence of the LASCO policy. The Attorney-General instead applied to strike out the applicants' originating application under Order 9, Rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021, arguing that it discloses no reasonable cause of action.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
1. Whether the LASCO policy of not assigning counsel for post-appeal applications is unconstitutional under Articles 9 (right to life and personal liberty) and 12 (equality before the law) of the Constitution of Singapore.
2. Whether the applicants' originating application should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court noted that the distinction between an appeal and a post-appeal application is significant. While an appeal is available to accused persons as of right, a post-appeal review is a discretionary process that is made available to avert possible miscarriages of justice in rare cases.
The court observed that the principle of finality is an integral part of the justice system, but it is not applied in as unyielding a manner in criminal cases as in civil matters, given the high cost of error in the criminal process. The Criminal Procedure Code provides for procedures to apply for a review of an earlier decision of an appellate court, and the Court of Appeal has the inherent power to reopen a concluded criminal appeal to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
On the second issue, the court applied the test for striking out an action, which is whether the action has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered. The court noted that the applicant (the Attorney-General) bears the burden of proving that the claim is "obviously unsustainable, the pleadings [are] unarguably bad and it [is] impossible, not just improbable, for the claim to succeed".
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed the Attorney-General's application to strike out the applicants' originating application. The court found that the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of the LASCO policy, and that the Attorney-General had not contested its existence. Therefore, the court concluded that the applicants' claim had some chance of success and should not be struck out.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
1. It highlights the importance of the right to counsel, even in the context of post-appeal applications, for individuals facing the ultimate punishment of capital punishment. The court recognized that the principle of finality is not applied as strictly in criminal cases, and that there are mechanisms to address possible miscarriages of justice.
2. The case underscores the need for legal aid schemes like LASCO to ensure that accused persons have access to legal representation throughout the criminal justice process, including post-appeal applications. The court's refusal to strike out the applicants' challenge to the LASCO policy suggests that the policy may be vulnerable to constitutional scrutiny.
3. The case sets an important precedent on the test for striking out an action, emphasizing that the burden is on the applicant (in this case, the Attorney-General) to prove that the claim is "obviously unsustainable" and "impossible" to succeed. This places a high bar for striking out actions, particularly in the context of constitutional challenges.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)
- Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed)
- Rules of Court 2021
Cases Cited
- [2022] SGCA 46 - Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General
- [2023] SGHC 346 - Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General
- [2023] SGHC 350
- [2024] SGCA 11 - Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and others v Attorney-General
- [2024] SGHC 122 - Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 - Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others
- [2016] 3 SLR 135 - Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor
- [2023] 4 SLR 1133 - Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others
Source Documents
This article analyses [2024] SGHC 122 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.