[ad_1]
SINGAPORE, Nov 26 (PTI) — The Singapore High Court has rejected applications by three Indian-Malaysians and a Singaporean Malay to stay the executions imposed on them under strict anti-drug laws.
The four — Singaporean Jumaat Mohamed Sayed and Malaysians Lingkesvaran Rajendaren, Datchinamurthy Kataiah and Saminathan Selvaraju — argued that the two provisions violated the constitutionally protected presumption of innocence. They are not represented by lawyers.
The High Court on Friday rejected their application to ban the execution, as well as the court’s application to declare the two provisions in violation of Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution, The Straits Times reported.
Four offenders were sentenced to death between 2015 and 2018, and separate appeals against conviction and sentencing between 2016 and 2020 were dismissed.
Read also | Walmart shooting: Police say gunman bought gun hours before killing
In a written judgment, Justice Valerie Thean said the application was filed within three months of the court’s final decision in their criminal case.
Judge Thean added that while the prisoners claimed they simply wanted to review the constitution, the real subject of their application was the justification of their convictions. The report quoted judges as saying that this amounted to an indirect attack on an earlier judgment in their criminal case.
She also found no arguable case that constitutional provisions had been violated.
These two provisions are statutory presumptions, once the prosecution proves the facts triggering the presumption, the defendant has the legal burden of proof to refute these provisions.
Under section 18(1), a person who is proved to be in possession of certain articles containing a controlled drug is presumed to be in possession of that drug until he proves the contrary.
Pursuant to Article 18(2), a person who is proved or presumed to be in possession of a controlled drug is presumed to know the nature of the drug until he proves the contrary.
The four inmates argued that the two provisions violated Article 9 of the Constitution, which states that no one shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except in accordance with the law.
They also argue that these provisions violate article 12, which guarantees equal treatment under the law.
The attorney general — the defendant in the case — argued that the two provisions did not detract from the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, nor were they unconstitutional.
The Attorney-General said that while the presumption of innocence was a bedrock principle of the criminal justice system, it was established law that Parliament could make statutory provisions shifting the burden of proof to the accused in certain circumstances.
Judge Thean said prisoners were wrong to rely on section 12 because their case focused on the right to a fair trial, not that the provisions were discriminatory.
As for Article 9, she referred to a landmark decision that the presumption of trafficking – if a person is proven to be in possession of more than a prescribed amount of drugs – is not unconstitutional.
“What the Constitution requires is that a person should not be punished for committing a crime until an independent and impartial tribunal determines that he has committed a crime and that there are logically proven facts before the court that would constitute a crime,” the judge was quoted as saying by the broadsheet Say.
Judge Thean said the presumption of innocence was not a mechanical formula, but a guiding principle expressed through technical rules. “The burden rests on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that its case ‘provides specifics for the presumption of innocence’.”
(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from a Syndicated News feed, the content body may not have been modified or edited by LatestLY staff)
[ad_2]
Source link