Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 113

Thread: Singapore

  1. #81
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Court of Appeal acquits man on death row accused of trafficking 1.8kg of cannabis

    Channel News Asia

    The Court of Appeal on Friday (May 27) overturned the conviction of a man on death row accused of trafficking more than 1.8kg of cannabis, after finding that it was a case of mistaken delivery.

    Raj Kumar Aiyachami, 40, was convicted in 2020 of possessing the Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking, which carries a mandatory death sentence.

    The Court of Appeal also acquitted a second man involved in the case, Ramadass Punnusamy, 41, who was previously sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane after being found guilty as a drug courier.

    Both men were nabbed on Sep 21, 2015, when Ramadass, a lorry driver for a transport company in Johor Bahru, drove into Singapore and delivered a red plastic bag to Raj at Senoko Drive.

    Central Narcotics Bureau officers knew the delivery would be taking place that day, and arrested both men shortly after. At trial, Raj and Ramadass did not dispute that they were in possession of the drugs.

    Delivering the court's judgment, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said that both men's appeals turned solely on whether they had actual or presumed knowledge of the nature of the drugs found.

    The court ruled in favour of Raj's defence that he had ordered chemically-sprayed tobacco, known as "Butterfly", and that the cannabis was delivered to him by mistake.

    It found that the trial judge erred in rejecting the testimony of Mark Kalaivanan Tamilarasan, a man Raj first met in prison between November 2017 and January 2018.

    During one conversation in the prison yard, after learning the circumstances of Raj's arrest, Mark told Raj that he was also at Senoko Loop on Sep 21, 2015 to collect "ganja", the street name for cannabis, but ended up receiving "Butterfly" instead.

    Raj told Mark to inform his lawyers Anand George, Ramesh Tiwary and Sankar Kailasa Thevar Saminathan of this, and Mark subsequently gave his evidence in court.

    Mark testified that he remembered the transaction took place on Sep 21, 2015 because his pet hamster died that evening and he got a tattoo with the date.

    The trial judge rejected Mark's testimony after finding that there was "ample opportunity" for him and Raj to "collude and manufacture the story".

    However, Chief Justice Menon said that without a specific finding of actual collusion, Mark's evidence should not have been rejected.

    "There is an immense difference between having the opportunity to do something and actually doing that thing," said the court.

    The court also noted that by giving his evidence, Mark was implicating himself in a very serious offence that he had not been charged with or investigated for.

    "The fact that Mark had effectively confessed to having at least attempted to commit a serious offence is a weighty factor in evaluating his evidence," the judges said.

    The Court of Appeal also disagreed with the trial judge's finding that Raj must have known he was in possession of cannabis because of the smell emanating from the package.

    The appeal by Ramadass, represented by Ms N K Anitha, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Johannes Hadi, contested the reliability of statements that he gave to police on the day of his arrest.

    The prosecution had argued that Ramadass admitted to actual knowledge of the nature of the drugs in these statements.

    The Court of Appeal found that numerous discrepancies and inconsistencies regarding the words that Ramadass used in the statements, as well as the times they were recorded at, made them unsafe to rely on.

    "Where the case against an accused person turns on the specific words that are reflected in a statement, as is the case here, it is critically important that the court be satisfied as to the accuracy of the statement," said the court.

    The court also noted that Ramadass consistently maintained that he believed he was bringing in chemically-sprayed tobacco, and found that he successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge of the nature of the drugs.

    The appeals were heard by a panel of three judges comprising Chief Justice Menon, Justice Andrew Phang and Justice Belinda Ang.

    CNA has asked the Attorney-General's Chambers for more information, including what will happen to the men following their acquittal.

    https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sing...appeal-2711101
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  2. #82
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,317
    Good. Mistaken identity is a big problem in that area. Unless it involves murder drugs shouldn’t be a death penalty crime nor a Life Imprisonment plus being beaten with a cane crime anyway
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

  3. #83
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Inmate appeared to have been 'singled out', says apex court on why it upheld stay of execution

    by Selina Lum
    Straits Times

    A death row inmate - one of 13 who have filed a civil case that is pending before the court - appeared to have been "singled out" by a decision to schedule him for execution on April 29.

    The Court of Appeal said this in written grounds issued on Monday (May 30) to explain why it upheld a stay of execution for Malaysian drug trafficker Datchinamurthy Kataiah a day before he was scheduled to be hanged.

    Datchinamurthy, 36, and 12 other inmates on death row have a pending civil claim against the Attorney-General over the unauthorised disclosure of their personal letters.

    Representing himself in court, he sought a judicial review in relation to the scheduling of his execution, which he argued resulted in him being treated differently from the other 12 inmates.

    On the morning of April 28, High Court Judge Hoo Sheau Peng ordered a stay of execution pending the resolution of his judicial review application.

    The stay was upheld that afternoon after a three-judge apex court heard and dismissed an appeal by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

    On Monday, in its written grounds, the apex court said Datchinamurthy has shown that the civil case is a relevant pending proceeding in which his involvement is required.

    "It was clear that (Datchinamurthy) would not have a reasonable opportunity to present his case... if the scheduled execution was proceeded with," said the grounds delivered by Justice Andrew Phang.

    The Court of Appeal also agreed that Datchinamurthy has shown a case of unequal treatment, until proven otherwise.

    The apex court said: "The judge did not err in her observation that although it could be that the differential treatment was reasonable in that it was based on legitimate reasons, it appeared at the present stage that the respondent had been 'singled out' by the decision to schedule him for execution on April 29, 2022."

    However, the court added that this did not mean that a prisoner awaiting capital punishment would automatically be granted a stay of execution on the basis of unequal treatment.

    "Every application is fact-centric, and whether a prisoner has a relevant pending proceeding would ultimately depend on the precise facts and circumstances concerned," said the court.

    It made a distinction between the unusual context of the current case and unmeritorious stop-gap actions to delay an execution, such as the high-profile case of Malaysian drug trafficker Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam.

    Nagaenthran's last-minute attempt to halt his execution, originally scheduled on Nov 10, 2021, gained international prominence.

    But the court said his lawyers' claim of a decline in his mental condition was baseless. He was hanged on April 27.

    Datchinamurthy was convicted in 2015 of trafficking in not less than 44.96g of heroin and given the death penalty. His appeal was dismissed in 2016.

    In 2020, he and fellow inmate Gobi Avedian sought to stay their executions, pending investigations into allegations of "unlawful" hanging methods.

    Datchinamurthy also complained that his and Gobi's private letters were being "illegally copied and forwarded" by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) to the AGC.

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the duo's case but ruled that the SPS is not allowed to forward copies of inmates' documents without their consent or a court order.

    Datchinamurthy and 12 other inmates who had their letters forwarded then pursued a civil claim, seeking damages and other reliefs.

    A pre-trial conference for his judicial review application is fixed on June 1, while a pre-trial conference for the civil claim is fixed on June 9.

    https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...y-of-execution
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. #84
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Malaysian To Be Hanged In Singapore After Court Dismisses Appeal

    AFP

    A Singapore court on Wednesday dismissed a last-ditch appeal by a convicted Malaysian drug trafficker, clearing the way for him to be hanged within hours.

    Kalwant Singh, 32, is due to be put to death early Thursday, two months after the execution of a mentally disabled man in Singapore sparked international outrage.

    Kalwant, who was convicted in 2016 of trafficking heroin into the city-state, had lodged a last-gasp attempt with the Court of Appeal to delay his sentence.

    His lawyer, Too Xing Ji, sought a review of the case, arguing on Wednesday that his client had provided information that helped authorities arrest a key suspected drug trafficker.

    While the death penalty is mandatory in Singapore for trafficking certain volumes of drugs, a judge can commute the sentence to life in prison if the offender acted only as a courier and cooperated with authorities.

    One of the co-accused in Kalwant's case had his sentence commuted after he cooperated substantively with investigators.

    But a three-judge panel dismissed Kalwant's appeal, citing an affidavit from Singapore's Central Narcotics Bureau stating its officers did not use any information he provided to arrest a suspect.

    "We dismiss the application for the stay," Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said during a hearing.

    In April, the execution in Singapore of a mentally disabled Malaysian drug trafficker, Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, triggered widespread anger.

    Critics including the United Nations and European Union said that hanging someone with an intellectual disability breached international law.

    But in a recent BBC interview, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam disputed that Nagaenthran was mentally disabled despite him having an IQ of 69, a level medical experts said represents an intellectual disability.

    He said the courts "found that he had the working of a criminal mind, and he made a deliberate, purposeful, calibrated, calculated decision to make money, to bring the drugs in".

    Shanmugam said Singapore maintained the death penalty because "there's clear evidence that it is a serious deterrent for would-be drug traffickers".

    But Kirsten Han, a prominent Singaporean rights activist, said research had shown it was not an effective deterrent and called the executions "horrifying".

    Campaigners fear that Singapore is gearing up for more executions in the coming months.

    This year so far, eight death row convicts have been informed they are to be executed, with two already hanged, Han said.

    Another drug trafficker, Singaporean Norasharee Gous, 48, is also due to be hanged Thursday, she added.

    https://www.barrons.com/amp/news/mal...al-01657103407
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  5. #85
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Singapore has hanged both Norasharee Gous and Kalwant Singh. Both were charged in the same case and in the linked appeal you can read more.

    Case of Gous

    Norasharee Bin Gous (“Norasharee”), a 42-year-old Singaporean, was arrested from his residence at Yishun on 1 July 2015, nearly two years after Yazid and Kalwant were arrested. He is charged with abetting, by instigation, Yazid to traffic in not less than 120.90g of diamorphine. Yazid claims that Norasharee was his boss and that Norasharee had met up with him in the afternoon of 23 October 2013 in the vicinity of the VivoCity shopping centre, where Norasharee informed him that there was going to be a delivery of drugs from Malaysia on the next day, and instructed Yazid to collect the bundles from the Malaysian courier (who turned out to be Kalwant).

    Yazid says that he knew Norasharee as “Boy Ayie”, and that he had saved his contact number (“xxx”) under the nickname “Eye” in his mobile phone (“YAZ-HP”). The call records of “YAZ-HP” show that “Eye” had made multiple phone calls to Yazid on 24 October 2013, both prior as well as subsequent to Yazid’s arrest. Woman Staff Sergeant Norizan Binte Merabzul (“PW25”) gave evidence that after Yazid’s arrest on 24 October 2013, she had allowed Yazid to return a missed call from “Eye” at 11.33am and to answer two incoming calls from “Eye” at 12.28pm and 2.06pm. Yazid informed her that in those telephone conversations, “Eye” had told him to “relax” as there were no “orders” for the day.

    Singh's case

    Kalwant does not deny that he had delivered to Yazid the 12 packets (six bundles) ofsubstances that were subsequently found to contain not less than 120.90g of diamorphine. He also admits that the 6 packets (three bundles) recovered from his haversack on 24 October 2013 were meant to be delivered to another recipient who drove a white Honda Integra (“the Integra driver”) in Toh Guan area.

    He says that all the packets belonged to “Anna”, who was his boss in Malaysia, and who worked as an illegal money lender as well as an illegal bookie for football betting. Kalwant owed “Anna” a sum of RM 44,000 from betting on football online. When Kalwant told “Anna” that he could not pay the debts, “Anna” threatened to beat him up, but later told Kalwant that he could repay the debt by working for him. In the one month prior to Kalwant’s arrest, “Anna” instructed him to come into Singapore on several occasions. On each occasion, Kalwant would ride Anna’s motorcycle (which bore the licence plate number JPH 6854) from his place of residence in Johor into Singapore. Upon reaching Singapore, Kalwant would, as per “Anna’s” instructions, first travel to Kranji where he would receive bundles from various persons at an Esso petrol kiosk. Thereafter, “Anna” would send text messages to mobile phones that he had given to Kalwant, for Kalwant to deliver different numbers of the bundles to different recipients in Singapore. According to Kalwant, he had always delivered the bundles to Yazid as well as to the Integra driver.

    According to Kalwant’s statements, the bundles that he collected from Kranji were always wrapped in black tape. However, on the day of his arrest, the man he met in Kranji not only passed to him six bundles wrapped in black tape but also another six transparent packets containing brown granular substance. The man told him that he had not had time to wrap these six transparent packets in black tape. Together with the man and following his instructions, Kalwant then helped to package the six transparent packets into three black bundles by wrapping every two of the transparent packets in newspaper and going over the newspaper with black tape.

    The actus reus of both charges against Kalwant are thus not in dispute. From the evidence, Kalwant’s involvement did not extend to that beyond a courier’s. However, Kalwant claims that he did not have the mens rea for the offences as he did not know that the packets contained diamorphine. The Prosecution contended that Kalwant had actual knowledge that the packets contained diamorphine or that, alternatively, the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA applies and Kalwant is not able to rebut that presumption “as he was wilfully blind”.

    https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Por...SGHC%20102.pdf
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  6. #86
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    As Singapore targets another man for execution, debate reignites on ethnic bias, unfair drug laws

    MSN

    Singapore has scheduled the execution of yet another local ethnic Malay man convicted of a drug offence, in a move expected to renew debate on the disproportionate number of ethnic minorities being sent to the gallows, as well as criticism of its draconian drug laws seen as victimising the poor and vulnerable.

    Nazeri Lajim, 64, will be executed on July 22 despite appeals for clemency by his family which had included a desperate bid for a presidential pardon.

    Nazeri was one of 17 death row inmates who had filed a historic suit against the government, accusing it of discrimination and bias in their prosecution due to their Malay ethnicity.

    The suit was dismissed late last year with the court calling it an abuse of process. The Singapore attorney-general later took two lawyers who had represented the inmates to court, where he was awarded costs over their filing of the suit "without consent".

    News of Nazeri's execution comes a little over a week after Malaysian citizen Kalwant Singh and Singaporean Norasharee Gous were hanged despite similar pleas against their killing from activists and rights lawyers.

    The PAP-led Singapore government has defended its spree of executions in recent months even as neighbouring Malaysia announced a major step to abolish the mandatory death penalty, including for drug offenders.

    Born to a Malay mother and English father who served with the colonial British army, Nazeri came from a background of poverty from which he tried to escape, only to become addicted to drugs.

    "We were very, very poor, extremely poor, at that time. We struggled, my family worked very hard," his younger sister Nazira said in recent interview published by anti-death penalty NGO Transformative Justice Collective.

    "We were like strays, you know? My mother didn’t [have time to] bother [with us] because my mother worked very hard. Then the family became disintegrated," Nazira said on her family's situation following the death of her father.

    Nazeri was sentenced to death in 2017, five years after his arrest during an anti-narcotics operation which saw him nabbed shortly after taking delivery of two bundles containing heroin from one Dominic Fernandez, according to court documents seen by MalaysiaNow.

    Nazeri said that the amount of drugs delivered to him was a mistake.

    "I had intended to return the second bundle in my possession as I firmly believe that it was a mistake on the drug supplier’s part. I am aware of the strict penalties that Singapore imposes for diamorphine and would not try to possess large quantities of it for fear of hanging," he said in an affidavit filed for the re-opening of his case.

    Prominent lawyer M Ravi, who attempted to re-open his case in 2020 backed by medical explanations, has maintained that the drugs found in Nazeri's possession were for personal consumption.

    "Nazeri suffered from drug addiction which was an illness. In fact, the trial judge was prepared to accept that Nazeri used five packets of heroin for his personal use daily," Ravi said in an immediate reaction to Nazeri's scheduled execution.

    "It does not make sense to kill someone who is ill and suffers from a serious drug addiction problem.

    "Treat the sick, don't kill them. Once again, another vulnerable person who comes from a minority background is being hanged."

    https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/natio...aws/ar-AAZBmh8

    As usual here is a link to his case. https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Por...udgments/2021/[2021]%20SGCA%2041.pdf
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  7. #87
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Singaporean Nazeri hanged in Changi prison

    Malayasia Now

    Singaporean Nazeri Lajim was hanged early today, the latest in a string of executions over drug offences in the city-state despite increasing scrutiny over its continued use of the death penalty.

    Nazeri was hanged at 6am at Singapore's Changi prison. It is understood that his family members are at the prison to claim his body and make funeral arrangements.

    Anti-death penalty activist Kokila Annamalai, who accompanied the family members to the prison today, said funeral prayers would be held at Masjid Assyakirin in Taman Jurong.

    Nazeri's remains will then be taken to the Muslim cemetery at Masjid Al-Firdaus.

    Nazeri, 64, was sentenced to death in 2017, five years after he was arrested with two bundles containing heroin.

    He had maintained that the drugs were for his personal consumption, an argument that his lawyers put forward to reopen his case based on medical evidence.

    Nazeri was one of 17 death row inmates who had filed a historic suit against the Singapore government, accusing it of discrimination and bias in their prosecution due to their Malay ethnicity.

    The suit was dismissed late last year with the court calling it an abuse of process. The Singapore attorney-general later took two lawyers who had represented the inmates to court, where he was awarded costs over their filing of the suit "without consent".

    On Wednesday, the High Court rejected his application to set aside his death sentence in order to pursue a judicial review pertaining to his constitutional rights to equal treatment.

    In his final appeal yesterday, Nazeri had begged for compassion, asking for more time to see his family members and siblings.

    However, the judge said the decision of the court was final.

    https://www.malaysianow.com/news/202...-changi-prison
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #88
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Pro criminal activists are claiming that Singapore hung another drug trafficker today but haven't provided a name and this execution didn't occur on a Friday, so I doubt this occurred.
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  9. #89
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Malaysian NGO ordered to pay $1,000 as costs for joining drug traffickers' bid to halt execution


    by Selina Lum
    The Straits Times.

    Malaysian non-governmental organisation Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), which participated in a last-ditch court action by two drug traffickers to stop their execution, was ordered on Wednesday (July 27) to pay $1,000 in legal costs.

    Lawyer Charles Yeo, who acted for Singaporean Roslan Bakar and Malaysian Pausi Jefridin, was similarly ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the Attorney-General.

    The Court of Appeal said LFL had abused the court's process by joining the pair in filing a criminal motion that asked the court to review its earlier decision to uphold their death sentences.

    The procedure "is not there to be used by private organisations for their own purposes", said the court.

    LFL's purpose in becoming an applicant "must have been to further, or obtain publicity for, its abolitionist aims", said the court, referring to the organisation's campaign against the death penalty.

    As for Mr Yeo, the court said he had acted improperly in filing and presenting the criminal motion, as well as a separate civil appeal, when he had no basis to justify the two legal actions.

    This caused the Attorney-General to incur costs unnecessarily in both proceedings, especially as the work had to be done on an urgent basis, said the court.

    Roslan, 51, and Pausi, 37, were given the death penalty in 2010 and have unsuccessfully challenged their sentences over the years.

    They were scheduled to be hanged on Feb 16 this year.

    On Feb 14, Mr Yeo filed a criminal motion asking the apex court to review its 2018 decision.

    LFL was named as a party in the application, which was dismissed on Feb 15.

    Mr Yeo then filed a civil application to start judicial review proceedings to declare that the death sentences were unconstitutional.

    This was dismissed on Feb 16.

    The pair's executions have been put off for an unstated length of time, as they were granted a respite by President Halimah Yacob.

    The Attorney-General sought costs of $2,000 against LFL and costs totalling $25,000 against Mr Yeo.

    MORE ON THIS TOPIC relating to the execution this is referring to

    Drug trafficker fails in 11th-hour bid to stave off execution scheduled for Friday

    Lawyers for Malaysian drug trafficker ordered to pay $20,000 for incurring unnecessary costs

    The costs applications were heard on June 27, with Mr Yeo representing himself and Malaysian lawyer N. Surendran K. Nagarajan appearing via video link for LFL.

    The court rejected Mr Surendran's arguments that the provisions which empower the court to make costs orders in respect of criminal proceedings were unconstitutional as they impede access to justice.

    The court said: "Having accepted that LFL had no standing to make any application in this court... he yet had the temerity to question the validity of a law that was passed precisely to discourage the wasting of valuable court resources by persons who have no business being a party before the courts in the first place."

    The court said an accused person's access to justice is not unlimited to the extent that one could infinitely take out applications that are frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process in order to delay the carrying out of punishment.

    The court said Roslan and Pausi had been accorded every opportunity to defend their innocence and challenge their convictions and sentences.

    https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...halt-execution
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  10. #90
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    A double execution is scheduled for Friday. Pro criminal activists are claiming without evidence that a double execution is also scheduled for Tuesday. However, without any Singapore news source, State confirmation, or release of names these will be treated as propaganda.

    For the execution Friday.

    Abdul Rahim Bin Shapiee to be executed on 5 August 2022

    On the morning of Friday, 29 July 2022, Abdul Rahim Bin Shapiee’s sister was notified that her brother’s execution has been scheduled for Friday, 5 August 2022. It was the news that she been dreading for years, her worry heightened in recent months by the multiple executions that have already been carried out by the prison this year.

    Abdul, a 45-year-old former Uber driver, was arrested on 3 August 2015, and has been on death row since 2018. If the scheduled execution proceeds, Abdul may have just 4 days left to live. He is one of four persons who may be scheduled to hang in Changi Prison between 2 to 5 August 2022.

    Arrested on 3 August 2015

    Abdul was arrested during a raid on a HDB flat carried out by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) on the morning of 3 August 2015, where they found him packing “granular powdery substances”. Another person, Nuraiin binte Rosman, was also caught packing “white crystalline substances”. CNB officers seized 14 packets and three straws of a powdery substance, as well as various drug-related paraphernalia. Abdul admitted to being in possession of these seized items.

    Abdul was later contacted by Ong Seow Ping, who was unaware that Abdul had already been arrested. Under the CNB’s watchful eye, Abdul made arrangements to meet Ong to deliver one pound of heroin. Ong was arrested shortly after he left home, and CNB officers found drugs in his HDB flat.

    Ong was initially charged with possessing, for the purposes of trafficking, 51.73g of diamorphine. Abdul faced a charge of possessing, for the purposes of trafficking, 41.24g of diamorphine. The amounts set out in the respective charges were lowered slightly at the end of trial after the Prosecution accepted that a portion of the drugs were intended for personal consumption by the respective accused persons.

    Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, a conviction for trafficking over 15g of diamorphine will result in a mandatory death sentence, unless certain narrow criteria are met.

    The Burden of Proof and Rebuttable Presumptions

    Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, there are certain rebuttable presumptions that the Prosecution can rely on to prove their case. Ordinarily, every element of a criminal charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the Prosecution. However, the burden of proof may shift when these rebuttable presumptions are relied upon by the Prosecution.

    In this case, the Prosecution relied on the presumption of trafficking in section 17 of the MDA. This presumption is triggered when one is caught with more than 2g of diamorphine in their possession. As both Ong and Abdul were arrested with more than 2g of diamorphine in their possession, the burden of proof on them to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities. The presumption provides:

    Presumption concerning trafficking

    17. Any person who is proved to have had in his possession more than —

    (c) 2 grammes of diamorphine;

    whether or not contained in any substance, extract, preparation or mixture, shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose.
    In the case of Rahmat bin Karimon and Zainal Bin Hamad, the Court of Appeal clarified that the presumptions under sections 17 and 18(1) of the MDA could not run together because the former only applied where possession was proved. Whereas if the latter provision was invoked, its effect was to give rise to a presumption (and not proof) of the fact of possession.

    In that case, the Court of Appeal also observed that it would be incumbent on the Prosecution to make clear which presumption(s) it relied on when advancing its case in the trial court and on appeal. This would give the accused a fair chance of knowing the case that was advanced against him and what evidence he had to adduce (and to what standard of proof) in order to meet that case. It would not be sufficient for the Prosecution to simply state, for instance, that the elements of possession of the drugs, knowledge of the nature of the drugs and possession for the purpose of trafficking have either been proved or presumed without making clear the precise nature of the primary case that was being put against the accused.

    Were the drugs meant for personal consumption or trafficking?

    At trial, Abdul was represented by Defence lawyers Nadwani Manoj Prakash, Jeeva Arul Joethy, and Luo Ling Ling.

    The crux of Abdul Rahim’s defence at trial was that several of the seized drug exhibits were for his own consumption and not for trafficking. Generally, when dealing with the defence of consumption to a charge of drug trafficking, the Court will examine the following factors:

    (a) rate of drug consumption;

    (b) frequency of supply;

    (c) whether the accused had the financial means to purchase the drugs for himself; and

    (d) whether the accused had made a contrary admission in any of his statements that the whole quantity of drugs was for sale.

    At trial, upon cross examination, Abdul that although his rate of consumption would vary, his average rate of consumption was one straw every two days.

    The Judge noted that, assuming that each straw contained 0.02g of diamorphine, 2 of the seized exhibits contain enough diamorphine for 517 straws, which would last about two years and ten months.

    Could Abdul afford the drugs he bought?

    When he was on the stand, Abdul testified that he earned less than $2,000 a month as a part-time Uber driver, and roughly $800 a week working for his father’s business. This worked out to to around $5,200 a month.

    However, after deducting for expenses for Nuraiin, to whom he paid $300 to $500 a month for helping to repack drugs, and the fact that Abdul told a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health that he was not working since July 2014 due to an arrest for a separate incident, the Court found that ” his monthly income in 2015 was most likely much lower than $5,200″.

    Considering the above matters and other facts related to his financial situation at the material time, the Judge held that Abdul could not afford spending at least $8,400 on purchasing both heroin and ice from February 2015 to June 2015 without the prospect of earning a profit from the onward sale of the drugs.

    Justice Valerie Then, in her grounds of decision, also made reference to multiple instances during Abdul’s statements where he had admitted to repacking and selling the drugs.

    Abdul’s allegations against Police Officers

    In the midst of trial, Abdul alleged that a police officer, ASP Chor, had made a threat against him.

    According to Abdul, as ASP Chor was frustrated that the telephone number of Ong provided by Abdul was incorrect, ASP Chor said: “If that’s the case, I’ll bring your wife and … your family to the station.”

    Abdul also alleged that another investigating officer, Basheer, had not allowed him to call his wife until he had given all his statements to the police. Abdul claimed that his led him to fear for his wife, and that this fear operated on his mind and continued to do so throughout the recording of his police statements.

    In Singapore, accused persons do not have access to legal counsel during the interrogation process. At the time Abdul’s statements were recorded, he was not accompanied by a lawyer.

    The Judge found that the words uttered by ASP Chor were not, objectively determined, a threat. She noted that there was no suggestion that ASP Chor had threatened to prosecute his family or to harm them in any way. In the Judge’s view, Abdul’s fears were self-induced and did not emanate from a threat, inducement or promise. The Judge added that Abdul conceded in cross-examination that his worries about his wife were “self-perceived”.

    Similarly, the High Court Judge found that Abdul’s contentions were without basis. Shee found that the words allegedly uttered by IO Basheer did not, objectively determined, amount to a threat, inducement or promise.

    The Judge held that it was difficult to believe that Abdul would have willingly admitted to a capital charge in exchange for an opportunity to speak with his wife. She also made reference to another Court of Appeal case involving an accused person who faced a capital charge. In that case, Singapore’s apex Court found that it “made no sense” that the accused’s free will “would be so easily weakened by his desire to see his wife that he would rather give a statement that would eventually bring him more harm than any advantage” (Sharom bin Ahmad v PP at [47]).

    The Judge found Abdul guilty of trafficking

    After considering the evidence, the Judge regarded as reliable the admissions made by Abdul in his third contemporaneous statement and those made after.

    Applying the relevant legal framework, the Judge ultimately found that the Prosecution had proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and she accordingly convicted Abdul on the amended charge.

    The Certificate of Substantive Assistance and the Section 33B exemption

    When a person has been convicted of possessing, for the purposes of trafficking, more than 15grams of diamorphine, the person faces the mandatory death penalty.

    However, if Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act applies, the Court has the discretion not to impose sentence of death and impose life imprisonment with caning instead. In order for s 33B to be applicable, 2 elements must be fulfilled.

    First, the Public Prosecutor must certify to any court that, in his determination, the person has substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore.

    In this case, the Public Prosecutor issued a certificate of substantive assistance in Abdul’s favour. So, the first element has been established.

    The second element that has to be established is that the convicted person must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a mere courier. Some examples of actions that show that a person was a mere courier include:

    storing or safe-keeping drugs in the course of transporting, sending or delivering those drugs;
    collection of drugs for the purpose of subsequent transporting, sending or delivering those drugs;
    collection of money upon sending, transporting or delivering of drugs; and relaying of information regarding subsequent deliveries in the course of transporting, sending or delivering drugs.

    The Court of Appeal, in the case of Zainudin bin Mohamed, found that Parliament intended section 33B of the MDA to contain “limited” and “‘tightly-defined’ exceptions” to the general rule that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for those who traffic or import drugs in a quantity exceeding the prescribed threshold, because general deterrence still remains the predominant objective in relation to drug offences.

    In that same case, the Court found that acts like sourcing for drug supply and acting as a go-between in negotiations for drug transactions, recruitment of drug couriers and administration of remuneration, efforts to expand the drug consumer base, and the division and packing of drugs for the purpose of giving the drugs the capacity for wider transmission, fell outside of the scope of the exception.

    Was Abdul a mere courier?

    On the facts, the Judge found that Abdul’s role exceeded that of a “courier” and that he was unable to satisfy the requirements of s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA. Thus, the alternative sentencing regime under s 33B(1)(a) was not available to Abdul because both requirements in s 33B(2)(a) and s 33B(2)(b) must be satisfied before an accused person may qualify.

    Amongst other things, the Judge found that Abdul had sourced for and intended to facilitate the sale and distribution of the heroin found in his possession. Reference was also made to Abdul’s sixth investigative statement, where he had admitted to some 55 customers. The Judge was of the view that Abdul had sourced diamorphine for Ong, and was a middleman between Ong and Kumar.

    Accordingly, the sentence of death was passed on Abdul.

    You may read the High Court’s grounds of decision in full here – https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2018_SGHC_82

    Abdul’s Appeal was dismissed in March 2020

    Abdul’s appeal against his conviction by the High Court was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 5 March 2020 with no written grounds of decision. The Court determined that all of the key points had been canvassed before the Judge, and that she was correct in her analysis.

    Abdul and Ong may be executed on 5 August 2022

    Abdul Rahim Bin Shapiee is scheduled to be executed on Friday, 5 August 2022. Ong Seow Peng, his co-accused, may also be executed on the same day.

    As was the case with the double executions of Kalwant Singh and Norasharee Bin Gous, who were co-accused persons, on 7 July 2022, co-accused persons are generally hanged on the same day provided that both are alive and on death row during the same period.

    https://wakeup.sg/abdul-rahim-shapiee/
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •