Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGCA 58
- Title: Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 4 August 2022
- Case Type: Civil Appeal (CA/CA 31/2022) arising from an originating claim (HC/OC 166/2022) and a summons (HC/SUM 2858/2022)
- Judges: Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Woo Bih Li J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Iskandar bin Rahmat and others (24 convicted prisoners)
- Defendant/Respondent: Attorney-General and another (including the Government of Singapore)
- Originating Claim: HC/OC 166/2022 (struck out in its entirety)
- Summons: HC/SUM 2858/2022
- Procedural Context: The appeal concerned the High Court’s striking out of the constitutional and damages claims; the Court of Appeal also dealt with an oral stay application linked to a pending execution warrant
- Legal Areas: Constitutional Law (accused person; fundamental liberties; equality before the law); Tort (breach of statutory duty); Abuse of process (collateral purpose)
- Statutes Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (including ss 356, 357 and 409 “CPC Cost Provisions”); Legal Profession Act 1966; Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (including s 5 and s 33B); Prisons Act 1993; Criminal Procedure Code (2010) (2020 Rev Ed); Prisons Regulations (referenced)
- Key Constitutional Provisions: Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed)
- Other Related Proceedings Mentioned: HC/OC 173/2022 (filed against trial counsel); HC/OS 825/2021 and HC/OS 1025/2021; Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General [2021] SGHC 274
- Execution Context: Abdul Rahim and co-accused Ong Seow Ping were scheduled for execution on 5 August 2022; a warrant to carry out the death sentence was issued and a notice of execution was served
- Judgment Length: 33 pages; 9,922 words
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2018] SGHC 82; [2021] SGHC 274; [2022] SGCA 26; [2022] SGCA 44; [2022] SGCA 57; [2022] SGCA 58
Summary
In Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another [2022] SGCA 58, the Court of Appeal dismissed a civil appeal by 24 convicted prisoners against the High Court’s decision to strike out their originating claim in its entirety. The prisoners’ core argument was constitutional: they sought a declaration that the “CPC Cost Provisions” in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (in particular ss 356, 357 and 409) were inconsistent with Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution. They also sought damages for an alleged breach of statutory duty connected to prisoners’ access to justice and access to counsel.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to strike out the claim. While the extract provided does not reproduce the full reasoning, the Court’s approach is evident from its treatment of the procedural posture and its emphasis on abuse of process and collateral purpose, as well as its insistence that constitutional arguments must be properly framed and not used as a vehicle to circumvent established legal constraints. In addition, the Court dealt with an oral application for a stay of execution made in the same hearing, and it refused permission for a proposed McKenzie friend who was not lawfully able to practise, citing concerns about “back door” legal practice and respect for court processes.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The proceedings arose from a constitutional and damages challenge brought by 24 convicted prisoners, collectively the appellants. They were serving sentences following criminal convictions, and the case was brought in the High Court as an originating claim (HC/OC 166/2022). The appellants sought two principal remedies. First, they sought a declaration that specific provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code relating to costs—referred to as the “CPC Cost Provisions”—were inconsistent with the Constitution. Second, they sought damages for breach of a statutory duty described as an obligation “to allow and/or not to obstruct and/or to facilitate access to justice and/or access to counsel/legal advice” in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution, the Legal Profession Act 1966, the Prisons Act 1993, and related common law principles.
The constitutional challenge was directed at ss 356, 357 and 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed). The appellants’ position was that those provisions, which govern costs ordered by the Court of Appeal or the General Division of the High Court and the recovery of such costs, effectively denied them access to justice. In other words, the prisoners argued that the cost regime operated as a barrier to meaningful legal recourse, thereby infringing their constitutional right to access to justice under Article 9(1). They also invoked Article 12(1), which guarantees equality before the law, contending that the cost provisions created unconstitutional inequality.
Procedurally, the High Court struck out the originating claim in its entirety. The appellants appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal in CA/CA 31/2022. The Court of Appeal’s hearing took place on 4 August 2022, and the judgment records that the High Court’s decision had been rendered the day before. The Court of Appeal therefore had to consider whether the originating claim was properly brought and whether it disclosed a legally sustainable basis for the reliefs sought, or whether it was doomed to fail such that striking out was appropriate.
Separately, the Court of Appeal also dealt with an oral application by the second appellant, Abdul Rahim, seeking a stay of execution. Abdul Rahim and a co-accused, Ong Seow Ping, were scheduled to be executed on Friday, 5 August 2022, pursuant to death sentences imposed after their convictions. The Court noted that Abdul Rahim had received a notice of execution on 29 July 2022. The stay application was grounded on an action Abdul Rahim had filed against his trial counsel (HC/OC 173/2022) on 3 August 2022, ostensibly for breach of duty and failure to follow instructions. The Court’s handling of this stay application underscores that the Court was attentive not only to the merits of the constitutional claim but also to the timing and purpose of related litigation in the context of imminent execution.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue was whether the appellants’ originating claim should have been struck out. That question required the Court of Appeal to assess whether the constitutional declaration and damages claims were legally viable, and whether they were properly pleaded. In constitutional litigation, especially where prisoners challenge criminal procedure provisions, courts must ensure that the claim is not merely speculative or framed in a way that seeks to obtain relief that is not legally available. The Court also had to consider whether the claim was an abuse of process, including whether it was being pursued for a collateral purpose rather than to vindicate a genuine legal right.
The second key issue concerned the alleged constitutional inconsistency of the CPC Cost Provisions with Articles 9(1) and 12(1). The appellants’ argument was that the cost regime undermined access to justice and created inequality. The Court therefore had to determine the proper constitutional analysis: whether the cost provisions genuinely infringed the right to access to justice, and whether any differential treatment (if established) amounted to unconstitutional inequality.
The third issue, arising in the same hearing, related to the stay of execution and the procedural propriety of the litigation relied upon to justify a stay. The Court had to consider whether the action against counsel (HC/OC 173/2022) could properly ground a stay, particularly given the proximity to the scheduled execution and the Court’s concern about collateral purpose. Additionally, the Court addressed a related procedural matter: whether the appellants should be permitted to be assisted by a proposed McKenzie friend who did not hold a practising certificate at the relevant time.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court of Appeal began by addressing procedural matters that affected the hearing. The appellants, who were in person, sought permission to be assisted by a McKenzie friend, Mr M Ravi, an advocate and solicitor who did not hold a practising certificate at the time. The Court refused the request. It explained that a McKenzie friend has no right with respect to pending litigation; the role is subject to the court’s permission and is intended to provide support rather than to act as an advocate. The Court emphasised that a McKenzie friend may not act as an advocate and should not be used as a “back door” to legal practice that the person is not lawfully permitted to undertake.
In refusing permission, the Court relied on its earlier observations in Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2003] 1 SLR(R) 833, particularly the principle that a litigant may be denied assistance where there is reason to think the privilege is being abused. The Court then drew on its own recent decision in Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another [2022] SGCA 26, where it had criticised a similar attempt to use an unqualified person to provide substantive legal inputs under the guise of “technical support”. In that earlier case, the Court found that the proposed “technical support” had in substance become substantive advocacy and instruction, which was disrespectful to the court and contrary to what had been represented.
Applying those principles, the Court in Iskandar bin Rahmat found that the appellants did not require a McKenzie friend for document-heavy or complex assistance. It also found that the proposed role was not appropriate given Mr Ravi’s previous conduct and his undertaking not to renew his practising certificate until March 2023. The Court’s reasoning reflects a broader judicial concern: constitutional and procedural litigation by prisoners must be conducted within the bounds of lawful representation and court process, and courts will scrutinise attempts to circumvent professional regulation.
Turning to the substantive appeal, the Court’s analysis (as reflected in the extract) indicates that it treated the originating claim as fundamentally defective. The Court described the two matters before it: the appeal against the striking out of OC 166, and the oral stay application. The Court’s framing suggests that it viewed the constitutional declaration and damages claims as not merely unsuccessful but as legally unsustainable in their present form. While the extract is truncated, the judgment headings listed in the metadata—“Abuse of Process — Collateral purpose” and “Tort — Breach of statutory duty — Essential factors”—signal that the Court likely analysed whether the pleaded statutory duty and constitutional infringement were properly established, and whether the litigation was being used to achieve an ulterior objective.
In constitutional cost challenges, courts typically require a clear causal link between the impugned provision and the alleged constitutional harm. The appellants’ claim that the CPC Cost Provisions denied access to justice would need to show that the cost rules operated as a real and substantial barrier to meaningful legal recourse, and that the barrier was constitutionally impermissible. Similarly, the damages claim for breach of statutory duty would require the appellants to identify the essential elements of such a claim, including the existence of a duty owed to them, breach, causation, and the availability of damages as a remedy for that breach. The Court’s inclusion of “essential factors” in the judgment headings suggests it scrutinised whether the pleaded duty and remedy were legally coherent.
Finally, the Court’s treatment of the stay application reinforces the abuse-of-process theme. The Court noted that Abdul Rahim’s stay application was grounded on an action filed against his trial counsel on 3 August 2022, with execution scheduled for 5 August 2022. The Court’s attention to timing and purpose is consistent with the principle that courts will not allow collateral litigation to derail lawful sentences, particularly where the collateral proceedings appear to be strategically timed to obtain procedural leverage.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court’s striking out of OC 166. Practically, this meant that the prisoners’ constitutional declaration claim and their damages claim did not proceed. The High Court’s decision to strike out the originating claim in its entirety therefore remained in effect.
In addition, the Court refused the oral application for permission to be assisted by the proposed McKenzie friend. The Court also dealt with the stay application in the same hearing, and the overall approach indicates that the Court was not persuaded that the collateral action against counsel justified a stay of execution on the facts presented.
Why Does This Case Matter?
Iskandar bin Rahmat is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts manage constitutional litigation brought by convicted persons, particularly where the litigation is intertwined with imminent execution and where procedural tactics may be suspected. The Court’s refusal to permit a McKenzie friend who lacked a practising certificate, coupled with its reliance on earlier warnings about “back door” legal practice, is a clear reminder that courts will enforce professional and procedural boundaries even in high-stakes contexts.
Substantively, the case is also relevant to constitutional challenges to criminal procedure provisions, especially those dealing with costs. While the Court’s full constitutional analysis is not reproduced in the extract, the decision to uphold the striking out indicates that courts will not allow constitutional arguments to proceed where the pleaded basis is legally insufficient, improperly framed, or pursued for collateral purposes. For lawyers, this underscores the importance of careful pleading: identifying the precise constitutional right, demonstrating how the impugned provision infringes that right, and ensuring that the requested remedies are legally available.
Finally, the case contributes to the jurisprudence on abuse of process and collateral purpose. When litigation is filed close to execution dates, courts will scrutinise whether the proceedings are genuinely aimed at vindicating rights or whether they are being used to delay or obstruct the lawful execution of sentences. This has practical implications for defence counsel and prisoner litigation teams: timing, purpose, and the legal coherence of claims will be central to whether relief is granted.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed), including ss 356, 357 and 409 (the “CPC Cost Provisions”)
- Legal Profession Act 1966
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), including s 5(1)(a), s 5(2) and s 33B (alternative sentencing regime)
- Prisons Act 1993
- Prisons Regulations (referenced in the appellants’ pleaded basis for access to counsel)
- Criminal Procedure Code (2010) (2020 Rev Ed) (general procedural framework)
Cases Cited
- Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2003] 1 SLR(R) 833
- Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General and another [2022] SGCA 26
- Public Prosecutor v Ong Seow Ping and another [2018] SGHC 82
- Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-General [2021] SGHC 274
- [2022] SGCA 44
- [2022] SGCA 57
- [2022] SGCA 58
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGCA 58 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.