Singapore | New Bill to clarify court process for applications in death penalty cases after appeals have failed
A new Bill introduced in Parliament on Monday (Nov 7) will clarify the court processes for capital cases that have exhausted the appeals and clemency avenues, designating the Court of Appeal as the only court to hear related applications.
In some cases, a single judge may be able to hear the application. This is a break from current practices, where such cases can be heard in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Additionally, if either the prisoner or their lawyer had previously abused court processes, permission to file the application will not be granted unless there is new relevant evidence in the case.
This comes after several judgments in which the Court of Appeal chastised the abuse of court processes and the dragging out of post-appeal capital cases.
In a joint press release on Monday (Nov 7), the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Home Affairs said the Bill will "clarify the process for post-appeal applications in capital cases" and "safeguard the administration of justice and the rule of law".
Post-appeal applications in capital cases include applications for a death sentence to be stayed, applications calling into question the conviction or death sentence imposed on a prisoner or judicial review applications challenging the President's decision not to grant clemency.
These applications are for cases where prisoners have been sentenced to death, but have failed in all their appeals and bids for clemency.
Under the new procedures, only the Court of Appeal may hear such applications and grant a stay of execution of the death sentence.
THE NEW PROCESS
The prisoner will first have to apply for permission to make a post-appeal application. The permission hearing may be heard by a single judge exercising the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction. In some cases, it may even be dealt with without an oral hearing.
The prisoner will have to provide the grounds for the application and reasons for not filing it earlier.
In deciding whether to grant permission under these new rules, the Court of Appeal has to consider several factors.
These include: Whether the application is based on material that could not have been shown in court before the relevant date, whether there was a delay in filing the application after this material or evidence was obtained and the reasons for such a delay, and whether the application has a reasonable chance of success.
Another key part of the amendments to the law pertains to the abuse of court processes.
If the prisoner or his or her lawyer had previously been found by the Court of Appeal to have abused the court's process in a relevant application, permission must not be granted, unless there is evidence that was not previously adduced.
This applies also if the prisoner or his or her lawyer had previously abused the court's process in any other application or court action to frustrate or delay the prisoner's execution.
Should permission be granted, the post-appeal application must be filed within a specified period and a hearing before a court of three or more judges will be fixed.
A warrant of execution may be carried out, unless the Court of Appeal has granted a stay of execution, the President has ordered a respite of the execution, or there is a proper application for permission to apply for a stay of execution.
Additionally, the Court of Appeal may decide whether to find that the prisoner or their lawyer had abused the court process to delay or frustrate the carrying out of the capital sentence.
The court may take additional evidence in deciding whether there was such an abuse of process.
The court will have the discretion to allow challenges, even if they do not comply with the new process.
Source: channelnewsasia.com, Staff, November 7, 2022
Death row inmates: New Bill proposed to prevent 'dragged-out' cases after appeals are exhausted
A joint media release by the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs said that, under the new Bill, only the Court of Appeal may hear such post-appeal applications in capital cases, and grant a stay of execution of the sentence.
The inmate would also have to apply for permission before a single judge to make a post-appeal application, and would be required to state the grounds of the challenge and the reasons for not filing it earlier.
If permission were to be granted for the post-appeal application, it would have to be filed within a specified period, and the hearing before a panel of 3 or more judges would be fixed within a specified period.
The ministries added that the court may decide whether the applicants or the applicants' counsel had abused the court process in a relevant application, or had abused the court process to "delay or frustrate the carrying out of the capital sentence" in any other application or action.
“There have been a number of applications by prisoners awaiting capital punishment at the last minute, after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted," a Ministry of Law spokesperson told The Straits Times.
“The proposed amendments will clearly set out the process for such applications, and the court will have discretion to allow challenges even if they do not comply with this process.”
Several cases were chastised for abuse of court processes
The proposed amendments to clarify the post-appeal process came after several judgments in which the Court of Appeal chastised the abuse of court processes and the dragging out of post-appeal capital cases.
The most high-profile case involving a death-row inmate was that of Malaysian Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, who was convicted of trafficking 42.72 grams of heroin in 2010 and given the mandatory death penalty.
His appeal was dismissed in 2011, but he filed seven applications to challenge his death sentence since 2015.
Days before he was to be hanged on 10 November 2021, his then-lawyer M. Ravi filed an application to the High Court, seeking judicial review of the impending execution. He also filed an appeal after the application was dismissed, and a separate application to the Court of Appeal, asking for a stay of execution for Nagaenthran to be assessed by a panel of psychiatrists.
In its judgment dismissing both challenges in March 2022, the Court of Appeal noted that the two applications took a “tortuous path” to come before it.
Nagaenthran's case gained prominence after anti-death penalty activists - including British billionaire Richard Branson - campaigned for his release in both Singapore and Malaysia.
The proposed amendments will provide that a capital sentence can be carried out unless the President has ordered a respite; the Court of Appeal has ordered a stay of execution; or an application for a stay of execution has been filed in court and served on the Singapore Prison Service.
Source: Yahoo News, Staff, November 7, 2022
🚩 | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.
 |  |
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde