125-711: Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor is a landmark decision delivered in 1980 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Singapore which deals with the constitutionality of section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (No. 5 of 1973) (now section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act ( Cap. 185, 2008 Rev. Ed. )) ("MDA"), and the mandatory death penalty by the Act for certain offences. The appellants contended that
250-653: A Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Some debate between member countries and also the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had repeatedly delayed the court's date of inauguration. As of 2005, Barbados replaced the process of appeals to Her Majesty in Council with the CCJ, which had then come into operation. The Co-operative Republic of Guyana also enacted local legislation allowing the CCJ to have jurisdiction over their sovereign final court of appeals system. Belize acceded to
375-637: A Republic with censorial power in their hands after freedom has taken effect. Rajah proposed that, in the light of the Reyes , Hughes and Fox cases, the holding in Ong Ah Chuan that the mandatory death penalty is constitutional should no longer be relied on by the Singapore courts. Thus, provisions such as section 302 of the Penal Code , which imposes the penalty for the offence of murder, should be construed such that
500-770: A United Nations member state since 21 September 1965, is deemed to have accepted the obligations in the United Nations Charter , which entails acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Article 5 of the Universal Declaration states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights applied to Singapore from October 1953 when it entered into force until 1963 when Singapore ceased to be part of
625-541: A capital sentence was discretionary this might reduce its deterrent effect . Also, the prerogative of mercy is available to Good Samaritans who find themselves involved in drug trafficking cases. The court's ruling that the mandatory death penalty is constitutional was applied by the Federal Court of Malaysia in Public Prosecutor v. Lau Kee Hoo (1982). However, in the subsequent case Reyes v. The Queen (2002),
750-587: A common allegiance to the Crown , and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations . With that Declaration and its statutory confirmation in the Statute of Westminster 1931 (Imp, 22–23 Geo 5, c.4) the impediment to abolishing appeals to the Privy Council, whether or not it had been legitimate, was comprehensively removed. Criminal appeals to the Privy Council were ended in 1933. Moves to extend
875-590: A controversial role in the evolution of Canadian federalism in that, whereas some Fathers of Confederation in negotiating the union of the British North American colonies against the backdrop of the American Civil War wished to ensure a strong central government vis-à-vis relatively weak provinces, appeals to the JCPC in constitutional matters progressively shifted the balance in favour of the provinces. While
1000-471: A few commentators have suggested that Canadian First Nations retain the right to appeal to the Privy Council because their treaties predate their relationship to Canada, the JCPC has not entertained any such appeal since 1867 and the dominant view is that no such appeal right exists. The nations of the Caribbean Community voted in 2001 to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council in favour of
1125-637: A few institutions in the United Kingdom . Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council , the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire , other than for the United Kingdom itself. Formally a statutory committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council , the Judicial Committee consists of senior judges who are Privy Councillors; they are predominantly justices of
1250-418: A law. Procedural due process , its extreme form represented by the formal model, deals with the manner which a law, administrative justice or judicial task is carried out. Natural justice principles originated from the procedural elements of due process, but it is uncertain if substantive elements of due process are accepted in local law yet. Ong Ah Chuan is said to adopt the idea of procedural fairness. In
1375-586: A metaphor in the obiter dicta , later reinterpreted and employed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1980s to establish what came to be known as the " living tree doctrine " in Canadian Constitutional law, which says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and liberal manner so as to adapt it to changing times. In 1949, all appeals to the Privy Council were abolished, but prior to this, there were several factors that served to limit
SECTION 10
#17328480023411500-511: A myriad of other factors, including whether there is sufficient evidence against a particular offender, whether the offender is willing to co-operate with the law enforcement authorities in providing intelligence, whether one offender is willing to testify against his cooffenders, and so on – up to and including the possibility of showing some degree of compassion in certain cases. In the Malaysian case Datuk Yong Teck Lee v. Public Prosecutor (1992),
1625-523: A number of Commonwealth members have ended the right of appeal from their jurisdiction. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 , while not considered to be lex scripta , severely limited the conditions under which the Judicial Committee might hear cases: From these discussions it was clear that it was no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain that questions affecting judicial appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with
1750-512: A particular practice adopted by a court of law offends against a fundamental rule of natural justice, that practice must not be looked at in isolation but in light of the part which it plays in the complete judicial process", and that "what may properly be regarded by lawyers as rules of natural justice change with the times". In Public Prosecutor v. Mazlan bin Maidun (1992), the Court of Appeal held that
1875-533: A person of life or personal liberty. Being Acts in force in Singapore, they were "in accordance with the law". The Privy Council rejected such an approach to interpreting the term "in accordance with law". Citing Article 4, which declares the Constitution to be the supreme law of Singapore and states that laws enacted by the Legislature which are inconsistent with the Constitution are void, the court maintained it had
2000-478: A presumption must be triggered by a predicate fact—that is, the fact must be found before the presumption applies. The ancient Jewish law code, the Talmud , included reasoning from presumptions ( hazakah ), propositions taken to be true unless there was reason to believe otherwise, such as "One does not ordinarily pay a debt before term." The same concept was found in ancient Roman law , where, for example, if there
2125-480: A result of the Grenadian Revolution , which brought Prime Minister Maurice Bishop to power. People's Law 84 was enacted to this effect. In 1985, Mitchell v DPP affirmed Grenada's right to unilaterally abolish appeals to the Privy Council. In 1991, Grenada restored the JCPC's jurisdiction. In 2016, there was a proposal in the 2016 Grenadian constitutional referendum to terminate appeals from Grenada to
2250-426: Is a type of presumption used in several legal systems. In English law , a conclusive presumption is a presumption of law that cannot be rebutted by evidence and must be taken to be the case whatever the evidence to the contrary. For example, a child below the age of criminal responsibility is presumed to be incapable of committing a felony. In Australian law, it is a conclusive presumption that no child under
2375-520: Is in violation of Article 12(1). The case involved an appeal by two appellants, Ong Ah Chuan (王亚泉 Wáng Yàquán) and Koh Chai Cheng, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – then Singapore's final appellate court – against their separate convictions under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 ("MDA"). by the High Court of Singapore , which were upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal . Ong Ah Chuan
2500-491: Is not necessary for an offence to distinguish between degrees of moral blameworthiness. On the other hand, the present case concerned the constitutionality of prosecutorial discretion . When making a charging decision, the Public Prosecutor: ... is obliged to consider, in addition to the legal guilt of the offender, his moral blameworthiness, the gravity of the harm caused to the public welfare by his criminal activity, and
2625-553: The curia regis ) retained jurisdiction to hear petitions from the King's non-English possessions, such as the Channel Islands and, later on, from England's colonies. The task of hearing appeals was given to a series of short-lived committees of the Privy Council. In 1679, appellate jurisdiction was given to the Board of Trade , before being transferred to a standing Appeals Committee of
SECTION 20
#17328480023412750-714: The Basic Law , the constitutional instrument of the SAR) the power of final interpretation vested not in the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong but in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China , a legislative body. Rebuttable presumption In law , a presumption is an " inference of a particular fact ". There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions. A rebuttable presumption will either shift
2875-739: The British Empire by becoming a state of Malaysia . Article 3 of the Convention prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. He said: The provisions of the Articles [of the European Convention] must in some measure be regarded as incorporated into Part IV of the Constitution. It could not have been the intention of the framers of our Constitution to diminish the rights which Singaporeans as colonial subjects were entitled to enjoy, and to lose it on becoming independent citizens of
3000-614: The Constitution of Belize . While recognising that the Constitution provides for the prerogative of mercy by vesting power to alter punishments in the Governor-General acting on the advice of an Advisory Council. However, this power was executive and not judicial in nature, and its existence could not remedy the constitutional defect in the sentencing process. The Privy Council reached a similar conclusion in R. v. Hughes (2002) and Fox v. The Queen (2002). In Watson v. The Queen (2004),
3125-417: The Court of Appeal conflicts with that of a decision of the Judicial Committee on English law, English courts are required to follow the domestic decision over that of the Judicial Committee except when the Judicial Committee has in its decision expressly directed the domestic court to follow its new decision. However, given the overlap between the membership of the Judicial Committee and of the Supreme Court,
3250-689: The Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved . By the Church Discipline Act 1840 ( 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86) and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 all archbishops and bishops of the Church of England became eligible to be members of the Judicial Committee. Prior to the coming into force of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 , the Privy Council was the court of last resort for devolution issues. On 1 October 2009 this jurisdiction
3375-410: The King-in-Council . In addition to colonial appeals, later legislation gave the Judicial Committee appellate jurisdiction over a range of miscellaneous matters, such as patents, ecclesiastical matters, and prize suits. At its height, the Judicial Committee was said to be the court of final appeal for over a quarter of the world. In the twentieth century, the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of
3500-633: The President 's person under the Penal Code . The court also mentioned in passing that contending the constitutionality of capital punishment was foreclosed by the recognition in Article 9(1) that a person may be deprived of life in accordance with law. Counsel for the appellants contended that the mandatory nature of capital punishment imposed by the MDA forbids the court from imposing punishment on offenders according to their "individual blameworthiness". This contravened
3625-568: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Although it is often simply referred to as the "Privy Council", the Judicial Committee is only one constituent part of the Council. In Commonwealth realms , appeals are nominally made to "His Majesty in Council" (i.e. the British monarch as formally advised by his privy counsellors), who then refers the case to
3750-489: The age of criminal responsibility cannot be held legally responsible for their actions, and so cannot be convicted of committing a criminal offence . The age has continually been under debate with adjustments being made in line with rulings, the results of psychological research and to some extent public pressure. The age was seven at common law , and raised by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to eight (section 50) and by
3875-410: The burden of production (requiring the disadvantaged party to produce some evidence to the contrary) or the burden of proof (requiring the disadvantaged party to show the presumption is wrong); in short, a fact finder can reject a rebuttable presumption based on other evidence. Conversely, a conclusive/irrebuttable presumption cannot be challenged by contradictory facts or evidence. Sometimes,
Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor - Misplaced Pages Continue
4000-524: The country's independence as a dominion in 1948. The Gambia retained the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under the Gambia Independence Act 1964 , even after The Gambia became a republic in the Commonwealth of Nations in April 1970 under Sir Dawda Jawara . Appeals were still taken to the JCPC from 1994 to 1998, when Yahya Jammeh , the then dictator and President of
4125-498: The differentia used to define a class of persons in a statute has to bear a reasonable relation to the social object of the statute. Ong Ah Chuan was found not to be applicable by the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran v. Attorney-General (2012). The case involved a constitutional challenge by the appellant against the Public Prosecutor for charging him with a capital offence when another accused person involved in
4250-526: The Appellate Jurisdiction of the CCJ on 1 June 2010. As it stands, a few other CARICOM states appear to be ready for the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the immediate future. The government of Jamaica in particular had come close and attempted to abolish appeals to the Judicial Committee without the support of the opposition in Parliament; however, it was ruled by
4375-609: The Bahamas. Initially, all Commonwealth realms and their territories maintained a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Many of those Commonwealth countries that became republics, or which had indigenous monarchies, preserved the Judicial Committee's jurisdiction by agreement with the United Kingdom. However, retention of a right of appeal to a court located overseas, made up mostly of British judges who may be out of tune with local values, has often come to be seen as incompatible with notions of an independent nation's sovereign status, and so
4500-466: The Caribbean—would stop using the Privy Council and set up their own final courts of appeal instead". On 18 December 2006, the Judicial Committee made history when for the first time in more than 170 years it ventured outside London, holding a five-day sitting in the Bahamas . Lords Bingham, Brown, Carswell, and Scott, and Baroness Hale of Richmond, travelled to the Bahamas for the special sitting at
4625-456: The Committee has indeed sat in the Bahamas again, in 2009. The 2018 Antiguan constitutional referendum saw the proposal to replace the JCPC with the CCJ rejected by a 52.04% majority. On 28 February 2023, the parliament of Saint Lucia approved the Constitution of St Lucia Amendment Bill 2023, which would replace the JCPC with the CCJ. An injunction against Saint Lucia's accession to the CCJ
4750-559: The Constitution should be given a "generous interpretation" so as to give individuals the full measure of the liberties referred to. Article 9(1) of the Constitution states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law." Counsel for the Public Prosecutor argued that the word law in Article 9(1) included written law. Since Article 2(1) defined written law included all Acts in force in Singapore, all Acts which were validly passed by Parliament would be consistent with Article 9(1) even if they deprived
4875-558: The Constitution should be interpreted. Referring to the judgment by Lord Wilberforce in Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher (1979), he affirmed that a constitution on the Westminster model should be interpreted not as an Act of Parliament, but as " sui generis , calling for principles of interpretation of its own, suitable to its character". He also held that fundamental liberties in Part IV of
5000-415: The Constitution would be a system of law that did not flout those fundamental rules". Elaborating, Lord Diplock stated that one of the fundamental rules of natural justice in the field of criminal law is that a person should not be punished for an offence unless it has been established to the satisfaction of an independent and unbiased tribunal that he committed it. This requires that there be material before
5125-576: The Constitution. In Nguyen Tuong Van v. Public Prosecutor (2005), the Court of Appeal reiterated Lord Diplock's statements and applied the reasonable relation test. Similarly, in Kok Hoong Tan Dennis v. Public Prosecutor (1996) Johari bin Kanadi v. Public Prosecutor (2008), Yong Vui Kong , and Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v. Public Prosecutor (2012), the courts reaffirmed the position in Ong Ah Chuan that
Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor - Misplaced Pages Continue
5250-426: The Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in construing the presumption created by section 15(2) of the MDA was rejected. The second argument of the counsel for the appellants was that even if the Court of Criminal Appeal had not erred in construing the presumption in section 15 of the MDA, the presumption was inconsistent with Article 9(1) of the Constitution. In addressing this argument, Lord Diplock first clarified how
5375-435: The Court of Criminal Appeal, which upheld the convictions and sentences. They sought and obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the constitutionality of sections 15 and 29 of the MDA. Section 15 created a rebuttable presumption that if a person was in possession of an amount of drugs exceeding the minimum quantities specified in the section, the possession was for trafficking purposes. The effect of section 29 and
5500-430: The Court, required "a degree of adventurous extrapolation" in the interpretation of Article 9(1) which the Court did not consider justified. Victor V. Ramraj has suggested that there are four models of due process : the formal model, procedural model, procedural-privacy model, and full substantive model. Substantive due process , represented by the full substantive model, is concerned with the content or subject matter of
5625-488: The Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC") that removed an accused person's right to make an unsworn statement not subject to cross-examination , and replaced it with a power exercisable by the court to draw an adverse inference if the accused person opts to remain silent after being warned about the possible consequences of doing so. They submitted that the changes violated the privilege against self-incrimination which
5750-506: The Gambia decided to restructure the Gambian judiciary under the 1997 Constitution of the Gambia to replace the JCPC with the Supreme Court of the Gambia . The last case from The Gambia to the JCPC was West Coast Air Limited v. Gambia Civil Aviation Authority and Others UKPC 39 (15 September 1998). Grenadian appeals to the Privy Council were temporarily abolished from 1979 until 1991, as
5875-482: The JCPC and to replace the JCPC with the Caribbean Court of Justice . This was rejected by a 56.73% majority, which means the JCPC remains Grenada's highest court. Another referendum, the 2018 Grenadian constitutional referendum also rejected terminating appeals to the JCPC by a 55.2% majority. Guyana retained the right of appeal to the Privy Council until the government of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham passed
6000-485: The Judicial Committee at the time of independence or of the transfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom: Burma (1948), Israel (1948), Somaliland (1960), Cyprus (1960), Zanzibar (1963), Zambia (1964), Rhodesia (1965), South Yemen (1967), Swaziland (1968), Papua New Guinea (1975), Seychelles (1976), Solomon Islands (1978), Vanuatu (1980), Hong Kong (1997). The following are members of
6125-400: The Judicial Committee could only give a unanimous report, but since the Judicial Committee (Dissenting Opinions) Order 1966, dissenting opinions have been allowed. The Judicial Committee is not bound by its own previous decisions, but may depart from them in exceptional circumstances if following its previous decisions would be unjust or contrary to public policy. The Judicial Committee of
6250-515: The Judicial Committee for "advice", while in republics in the Commonwealth of Nations retaining the JCPC as their final court of appeal, appeals are made directly to the Judicial Committee itself. The panel of judges (typically five in number) hearing a particular case is known as "the Board". The report of the Board is, by convention, always accepted by the King-in-Council as judgment. The origins of
6375-479: The Judicial Committee moved to the former Middlesex Guildhall building, which had been refurbished in 2007 to provide a home for both the JCPC and the newly created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom . In this renovated building, Court 3 is used for Privy Council sittings. In recent years, the Judicial Committee has occasionally sat outside of London. Between 2005 and 2010 it sat twice in Mauritius and three times in
SECTION 50
#17328480023416500-470: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Termination of Appeals) Act 1970 and the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973. Hong Kong's court system changed following the transfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom to China on 1 July 1997, with the Court of Final Appeal serving as the highest judicial authority of the Special Administrative Region (SAR), and (pursuant to Article 158 of
6625-451: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council can be traced back to the curia regis , or royal council. In theory, the King was the fount of justice, and petitions for redress of wrongs arising from his courts were addressed to him. That power was gradually taken over by Parliament (which evolved out of the curia regis ) within England, but the King-in-Council (which also evolved out of
6750-476: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in ecclesiastical and maritime causes. Most appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are formally appeals to "His Majesty in Council". Appeals from Brunei are formally to the Sultan and Yang di-Pertuan , while appeals from republics within the Commonwealth are directly to the Judicial Committee. Appeals are generally by leave of the local Court of Appeal, although
6875-663: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the procedure used in Jamaica to bypass the opposition was incorrect and unconstitutional. Another attempt will also be forthcoming. Caribbean governments have been coming under increased pressure from their electorates to devise ways to override previous rulings by the JCPC such as Pratt v A-G (Jamaica, 1993), R v Hughes (Saint Lucia, 2002), Fox v R (Saint Kitts and Nevis, 2002), Reyes v R (2002, Belize), Boyce v R (Barbados, 2004), and Matthew v S (Trinidad and Tobago, 2004), all of which are Privy Council judgments concerning
7000-439: The Judicial Committee retains discretionary power to grant leave to appeal as well. After hearing an appeal, the panel of judges which heard the case (known as "the Board") issues its decision in writing. For appeals to His Majesty in Council, the Board submits its decision to the King as advice for his consideration. By convention, the advice is always accepted by the King and given effect via an Order in Council . Historically,
7125-682: The Judicial Committee: The bulk of the Committee's work is done by the Supreme Court Justices, who are paid to work full-time in both the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. Overseas judges may not sit when certain UK domestic matters are being heard, but will often sit when appeals from their own countries are being heard. Until 1904 the Registrar of the Admiralty court was also Registrar to
7250-423: The MDA assigned various quantity levels to certain controlled drugs, such as 2 grams (0.071 oz) for heroin. On securing proof that an accused possessed more than 2 grams of heroin, the courts could adopt a rebuttable presumption that such possession was for trafficking purposes, pursuant to section 3 of the MDA. It would be for the accused to rebut the presumption by proving that the possession of drugs above
7375-585: The MDA. This argument was rejected by the Privy Council. The Privy Council's decision was delivered by Lord Diplock on 15 October 1980. His Lordship held that in Singapore, the offences of drug possession and drug trafficking are distinct from each other. Drug trafficking was an offence under section 3 of the MDA. Drug possession, on the other hand, was an offence under section 6 of the MDA. The cases of Poon Soh Har v. Public Prosecutor (1977) and Seow Koon Guan v. Public Prosecutor (1978) were cited as evidence of Singapore courts upholding this distinction. Where
7500-471: The Privy Council found Ong Ah Chuan of limited assistance as it felt that at the time it was decided the jurisprudence on international human rights was "rudimentary". The appellant in Reyes , who had been convicted of a double murder, appealed as to the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence imposed on him. The Privy Council held that this penalty contravened the prohibition against inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment in section 7 of
7625-401: The Privy Council held that the argument that capital punishment is unconstitutional is foreclosed by Article 9(1) of the Constitution itself because it clearly states that a person can be deprived of his life "in accordance with law". The court further noted that "[t]here is nothing unusual in a capital sentence being mandatory" since at common law all capital sentences were mandatory, and that if
SECTION 60
#17328480023417750-455: The Privy Council in 1696. The Appeals Committee of the Privy Council was one of the earliest judicial bodies which exercised the power of judicial review, in a series of cases from the American colonies which raised questions about the constitutionality of colonial statutes, measured against the royal charters which set out the powers of the colonial governments. By the early nineteenth century,
7875-571: The Privy Council in criminal cases in 1933. Despite this, some decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada went on to appeal in the JCPC, including notably the Persons Case ( Edwards v Canada (AG) ), which affirmed that women had always been "qualified persons" under the British North America Act, 1867 (Canada's Constitution ) eligible to sit in the Senate of Canada . In this case, it also used
8000-457: The Privy Council is based in London. From its establishment to 2009, it mainly met in the Privy Council Chamber in Downing Street , although increase in the Judicial Committee's business in the twentieth century required it to sit simultaneously in several panels, which met elsewhere. The Chamber, designed by John Soane , was often criticised for its interior design, and was extensively remodelled in 1845 by Sir Charles Barry . On 1 October 2009,
8125-399: The Privy Council shrank considerably, as British dominions established their own courts of final appeal and as British colonies became independent, although many retained appeals to the Privy Council post-independence. Canada abolished Privy Council appeals in 1949, India and South Africa in 1950, Australia in 1986 , and New Zealand in 2003. Currently, eleven Commonwealth countries outside of
8250-440: The Second Schedule of the Act was to impose the mandatory death penalty for trafficking above a certain quantity of drugs. Three issues were raised by counsel for the appellants when the case went before the Privy Council: The appellants' first submission was that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in deciding that the drugs found in the possession of the accused persons had been for trafficking purposes under section 15 of
8375-467: The Singapore Constitution lacks. The reasonable relation test applied to Article 12(1) by the Privy Council has been applied in a number of local and foreign cases. It was reformulated into a three-stage test by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong (1998). The Court applied a modified version of the test to situations involving the discriminatory application of neutral laws in Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General (2009), and expressed
8500-456: The United Kingdom retain Privy Council appeals, in addition to various British and New Zealand territories. The Judicial Committee also retains jurisdiction over a small number of domestic matters in the United Kingdom, reduced by the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009. The United Kingdom does not have a single highest national court; the Judicial Committee is the highest court of appeal in some cases, while in most others
8625-419: The abolition to civil matters were shelved during the growing international crisis of the 1930s but re-tabled after the Second World War , and civil appeals ended in 1949, with an amendment of the Supreme Court Act. Cases begun before 1949 were still allowed to appeal after 1949, and the final case to make it to the Council was not until 1959 with the case of Ponoka-Calmar Oils v Wakefield . The JCPC played
8750-420: The accused alone is armed with the knowledge of the purpose of the illegal act. The section 15 presumption of trafficking was also held to be in accordance with law for the following reasons: Since the presumption in section 15 was rebuttable, it did not conflict with any fundamental rule of natural justice, and was logically probative of facts sufficient to constitute the offence. The presumption of trafficking
8875-408: The accused was found to be transporting controlled drugs, it was held that the transporter's purpose would determine whether the offence was one of drug possession or drug trafficking. Trafficking entailed the moving of drugs for the purpose of transferring possession from the mover to some other person, whether this purpose was achieved or not. It was observed by the Privy Council that section 15 of
9000-401: The actions did not amount to trafficking within the meaning of the MDA. The accused also claimed that he had purchased the large quantity of heroin because it was cheaper and more convenient to buy it in bulk. The trial judges dismissed the defence and found that the accused had invented the story "to escape the consequences of his criminal act". Having found that the accused had been transporting
9125-410: The age of 10 can be held responsible for criminal action. This presumption exists to protect children by acknowledging that they do not have sufficient development to understand the gravity and consequences of committing a criminal act. Recent amendments to Impaired Driving law allows the Crown to rely on a conclusive presumption. Normally, where the police conduct a breathalyzer test within 2 hours of
9250-423: The circumstances of the offence committed. Such differentiation is consistent with Article 12(1) as long as the element that the Legislature adopts as the differentiating factor is not entirely arbitrary but bears a "reasonable relation to the social object of the law". Applying this reasonable relation test to the case, the Privy Council held that the mandatory death penalty was consistent with Article 12(1). This
9375-457: The court logically probative of facts sufficient to constitute the offence. The Privy Council then considered whether the presumption of trafficking under section 15 of the MDA was inconsistent with the Constitution. The appellants had argued that the presumption was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence , which was part of Singapore law by virtue of Article 9(1) of the Constitution. Lord Diplock rejected this argument, and instead upheld
9500-454: The court stated that "[i]t is no longer acceptable, nor is it any longer possible to say, as Lord Diplock did on behalf of the Board in Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1981] AC 648, 674, that there is nothing unusual in a death sentence being mandatory. ... [T]he mandatory penalty of death on conviction of murder long predated any international arrangements for the protection of human rights." K.S. Rajah has noted that Singapore, having been
9625-590: The courts to examine the substantive fairness or reasonableness of laws. The ruling in Ong Ah Chuan that the mandatory death penalty is constitutional has not been followed in later Privy Council decisions. These cases were distinguished by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor (2010) on the basis that the constitutions involved in those cases contained express prohibitions against inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment , which
9750-578: The death penalty in the Caribbean region. The then President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom , Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers , has voiced displeasure with Caribbean and other Commonwealth countries continuing to rely on the British JCPC. During an interview Lord Phillips was quoted by the Financial Times as saying that " 'in an ideal world' Commonwealth countries—including those in
9875-415: The death penalty is not mandatory in order to bring it into conformity with the Constitution pursuant to Article 162. However, in Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor (2010), the Court of Appeal distinguished Privy Council cases such as Reyes , Hughes , Fox and Watson on the ground that were decided in different textual contexts, as inhuman punishment was expressly prohibited by the constitutions of
10000-402: The decisions of the former are extremely persuasive and usually followed. The Judicial Committee holds jurisdiction in appeals from the following 32 jurisdictions (including eleven independent nations): Judicial appeal of final resort has been assumed by other bodies in some current and former Commonwealth countries: The following countries or territories did not retain the jurisdiction of
10125-585: The doctrine of separation of powers indicated that such "questions of social policy" are not within the purview of the judiciary . Since the appellants could not show that the differentiation amongst offenders on the basis of the quantity of the drug was arbitrary, the appeal on this ground was dismissed. After the Privy Council dismissed his appeal, Ong Ah Chuan was eventually hanged on 20 February 1981 at Singapore's Changi Prison for his crime after his appeal to President of Singapore Benjamin Sheares for clemency
10250-521: The doctrine of reasonable classification and identified a rational relation between the differentia and the object of the statute. Similarly, in the Indian case D.C. Bhatia v. Union of India (1995), the appellant challenged the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that sought to limit the protection of rent-control legislation to areas where the monthly rent
10375-447: The drugs, his act fell under the definition of traffic in the Act. He was convicted for trafficking heroin and sentenced to death. In Koh Chai Cheng's case, he denied knowledge of the drugs and contended that they had been planted in the boot of his car by police informers after he had arrived in Singapore. The trial judges rejected the argument, and the accused was accordingly convicted. Both Ong Ah Chuan and Koh Chai Cheng appealed to
10500-408: The duty to determine whether any Act of Parliament was inconsistent with the Constitution and thus void. A law that is void will not be in force in Singapore, and consequently, will not be grounds for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty under Article 9(1). In line with the generous approach that should be taken when engaging in constitutional interpretation, the Privy Council interpreted
10625-592: The effectiveness of measures to reduce appeals: Nadan , together with the King–Byng Affair , was a major irritant for Canada and provoked the discussion at the 1926 Imperial Conference which led to the Balfour Declaration , which declared the United Kingdom and the dominions to be ... autonomous Communities within the British Empire , equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by
10750-679: The government may (through the King) refer any issue to the committee for "consideration and report" under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the court of final appeal for the Church of England . It hears appeals from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York , except on matters of doctrine, ritual or ceremony, which go to
10875-544: The growth of the British Empire, which had greatly expanded the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council (despite the loss of appeals from the American colonies), had put great strains on the existing arrangements. In particular, the Appeals Committee had to hear cases arising from a variety of different legal systems in the colonies, such as Hindu law , with which its members were unfamiliar. Another serious problem
11000-534: The hearings on their appeals. For these reasons, the Appeals Committee fell into disrepute among better-informed lawyers and judges in the colonies. In 1833, at the instigation of Lord Brougham , the Lord Chancellor , Parliament passed the Judicial Committee Act 1833 . The Act established the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a statutory committee of the Privy Council that would hear appeals to
11125-466: The heroin into Singapore from Malaysia in order to sell it to a buyer, who was actually a police informer. The appellant was arrested when he was about to drive away from the meeting place and the heroin was discovered in the boot of his car. Before the High Court, counsel for Ong submitted that since the accused had been carrying the drugs for personal purposes and not for the purposes of delivery or sale,
11250-446: The highest court of appeal is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom . (In Scotland the highest court in criminal cases is the High Court of Justiciary ; the Supreme Court is the highest court in civil cases and matters arising from Scottish devolution , the latter previously having been dealt with by the Judicial Committee.) The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has jurisdiction in the following domestic matters: Additionally,
11375-455: The invitation of Dame Joan Sawyer , then the President of the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas ; the Committee returned to the Bahamas in December 2007 for a second sitting. On the latter occasion, Lords Hope, Rodger, Walker, and Mance, and Sir Christopher Rose, heard several cases. At the end of the sitting, Lord Hope indicated that there may be future sittings of the Committee in the Bahamas, and
11500-431: The judiciary exercising its proper role. Furthermore, a judicial inquiry arguably involves both substantive and procedural aspects, so both concepts require no differentiation. Despite these academic opinions, at present the Singapore courts are still deferential to the exercise of Parliament's legislative powers and adopt a respectful attitude towards its pronouncements. In Lo Pui Sang v. Mamata Kapildev Dave (2008), it
11625-419: The law and entitled to the equal protection of the law." The Privy Council explained that the Article provides for all like persons to be treated alike, and prohibits laws that impose different punishments for individuals within the same class. However, the equality provision does not forbid discrimination in prescribing different punishments for different classes of individuals. These classes are differentiated by
11750-469: The law is fair, just and reasonable does not matter. Lim Chin Leng has opined that to accord principles of natural justice an elevated constitutional status may cause it to override statutes, which might contradict the Constitution which vests the law making power in the legislature. Similarly, Andrew J. Harding disagrees with the idea of "substantive natural justice" because, in his view, it cannot be shown that it
11875-423: The limits set out under section 15 was not for trafficking purposes. Acquittal from the offence of drug trafficking could be secured if the accused could prove that the conveying of the drugs from one place to another was for the purpose of personal consumption. Lord Diplock explained that the rationale for the section 15 presumption was the difficulty in proving the purpose of trafficking. In drug trafficking cases,
12000-422: The market. This accordingly justifies the severe punishment of the mandatory death penalty as it serves as a form of deterrence . In addition, Lord Diplock expressed the opinion that the appropriate boundary to be drawn between varying classes of persons is a question best left to the Legislature. He declined to comment on whether differences in circumstances justified the imposition of different punishments. Rather,
12125-425: The meaning of law in contexts such as the term "in accordance with law" as in Article 9(1) to refer to a system of law incorporating fundamental rules of natural justice . This interpretation was, in the court's view, justified, as "[i]t would have been taken for granted by the makers of the Constitution that the 'law' to which citizens could have recourse for the protection of fundamental liberties assured to them by
12250-497: The operation of a conveyance (or care and control), the court can accept the blood alcohol concentration as being the same at the time of the operation of the vehicle as at the time of the offence. If the test is conducted outside the two hours, and the blood alcohol concentration is greater than 20 mg of alcohol/100 mL of blood, there is now a conclusive presumption that the blood alcohol concentration can be increased by 5 mg of alcohol/100 mL of blood for each 30 minutes. A child below
12375-554: The plaintiff claimed that section 27(8) of the Police Act 1967 violated Article 8(1) of the Constitution of Malaysia, which provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. It was argued that this provision was violated because parliamentarians who participated in illegal demonstrations were subject to a higher mandatory fine as compared to non-parliamentarians who had committed similar offences. The High Court of Malaya applied
12500-487: The power to legislate to limit them. The right of appeal from federal courts (including territory supreme courts) was abolished through the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968. Appeals from state courts, a continuation of the right to appeal decisions of colonial courts before 1901, continued, until they were also abolished by the Australia Act 1986 , which was enacted by both the UK and Australian parliaments, on
12625-549: The presumption of trafficking under section 15 of the MDA violated Article 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1980 Reprint) (now the Singapore Constitution ( 1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint )) and that the mandatory death penalty was arbitrary and violated Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Dismissing the appeal, the Privy Council clarified several issues of Singapore law . It explained that
12750-461: The principle of equality before the law stated in Article 12(1) of the Constitution because it forced the court to prescribe the highest penalty of death to an addict who supplies to a friend 15 grams (0.53 oz) of heroin, and to mete out a less severe punishment for a drug dealer who sells to others a total of 14.99 grams (0.529 oz) of heroin. Article 12(1) states: "All persons are equal before
12875-550: The procedural model, courts go beyond a mere assessment of formal validity and inquire into the procedural fairness of legal processes. In Singapore, the current legal position is somewhere between the formal model as evidenced by the case of Jabar bin Kadermastan v. Public Prosecutor (1995), and the procedural model evidenced by Ong Ah Chuan . In Jabar , the Court of Appeal held that a law is valid and binding as long as it has been validly passed by Parliament . Consequently, whether
13000-479: The request of all the state governments. The Australian Constitution retains the provision allowing the High Court of Australia to permit appeals to the Privy Council on inter se questions. However, the only time such permission was given was in 1912 and the High Court has stated that it will not grant it again, since the jurisdiction to do so "has long since been spent", and it is obsolete. Canada created its own Supreme Court in 1875 and abolished appeals to
13125-495: The respective jurisdictions from which the cases originated. Hence, those cases were strictly based on the issue of what kind of punishment would be considered inhuman and not directly related to the issue on appeal in Yong Vui Kong , which was the meaning of the word law in Article 9(1) of the Constitution. Several local and foreign cases have adopted the Privy Council's approach in Ong Ah Chuan to interpreting Article 12(1) of
13250-403: The right to silence is related largely to the giving of evidence, and that there is no constitutional or statutory provision in Singapore protecting it. As such, to say it is a constitutional right in the form of a fundamental rule of natural justice would be to "elevate an evidential rule to constitutional status" despite the lack of "explicit provision" in the Constitution. This, in the opinion of
13375-538: The same drug trafficking incident was not. While the Court said that the Public Prosecutor was required to compare like with like when deciding what charge to levy on accused persons, the present case differed from the factual situation in Ong Ah Chuan . In that case, the Privy Council was examining the constitutionality of a criminal offence, and held that an offence does not violate Article 12(1) so long as provides "equal punitive treatment for similar legal guilt". It
13500-401: The strongest attainable evidence was likely to be the act of transporting the drugs. Regardless of this, his Lordship held that even in the absence of section 15, it could be inferred that the transportation of a large quantity of drugs was for trafficking purposes. As a matter of common sense, the larger the quantity, the more likely it is for trafficking. Therefore, the appellants' argument that
13625-405: The validity of a presumption of trafficking where possession of a quantity of prohibited drugs higher than the minimum specified in section 15 of the MDA has been proved. Where the difference between an offence and some lesser offence was the particular purpose with which that unlawful act was committed, there was nothing unfair about requiring the accused to prove his actual purpose. This was because
13750-467: The view that Article 12(1) would only be infringed in such cases where there was intentional and arbitrary discrimination, or inequalities due to inadvertence or inefficiency on a very substantial scale. The element of arbitrariness was also mentioned by the Court in Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs (1988) – it said a law that allows a public authority to exercise arbitrary discretionary power
13875-452: The wishes of the part of the Empire primarily affected In 1901, the Constitution of Australia limited appeals from the new federal High Court of Australia to the Privy Council, by prohibiting appeals on constitutional matters unless leave is granted by the High Court on inter se questions. Appeals on non-constitutional matters were not prohibited, but the federal Parliament of Australia had
14000-676: The word law in Article 9(1) includes fundamental rules of natural justice . The court also held that Article 12(1) does not prohibit differentiation between classes of people, but requires that like should be compared with like. It also laid out the "reasonable relation" test to determine if legislation is in breach of Article 12(1). Ong Ah Chuan has been referred to in subsequent cases. In some of them, attempts have been made to argue that certain legal principles are fundamental rules of natural justice, and thus constitutionally protected by Article 9(1). There has also been academic discussion concerning whether fundamental rules of natural justice enable
14125-416: Was a fundamental rule of natural justice. Lord Diplock, speaking for the court, questioned if the right to silence is a fundamental rule of natural justice but found it unnecessary to decide this point as he held that the new CPC provisions provided an accused person with an inducement to testify but did not compel him or her to do so. In reaching this conclusion, the judge noted that "[i]n considering whether
14250-437: Was because a reasonable relation exists between the social objective of the MDA and the differentiating factor – the quantity of drug involved in the offence. The objective of the MDA is to control the illicit drug trade, especially with regard to drugs that are highly addictive. This creates a social evil – one that the MDA seeks to prevent – which is said to be "broadly proportional to the quantity of addictive drugs" brought into
14375-431: Was charged for trafficking 209.84 grams (7.402 oz) of heroin . Two narcotics officers witnessed the appellant putting a plastic bag into his car and followed him. The appellant drove to Bukit Timah Road , where he was arrested by the officers. The officers searched the appellant's car and found the heroin in his car. Koh Chai Cheng was charged for trafficking 1,256 grams (44.3 oz) of heroin. The appellant brought
14500-466: Was declined. Ong was 27 years old at the time of his execution, and he became the seventh drug offender to be hanged in Singapore since the 1975 legal introduction of the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking. Koh Chai Cheng, the other appellant in Ong's appeal, was also hanged on 27 March 1981. In the Privy Council case Haw Tua Tau v. Public Prosecutor (1981), the appellants criticised amendments to
14625-574: Was doubt as to whether a child was really the issue of someone who had been left money in a will, the presumption was in favour of the child. Medieval Roman and canon law graded presumptions according to strength: light, medium or probable, and violent. These gradings and many individual presumptions were taken over into English law in the seventeenth century by Edward Coke . A number of presumptions are found in most common law jurisdictions. Examples of these presumptions include: A conclusive presumption, also known as an irrebuttable presumption,
14750-622: Was filed on 3 March 2023 against the bill in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the High Court of Justice of Saint Lucia, and is currently pending. Sri Lanka , formerly Ceylon , abolished appeals to the Privy Council under the Court of Appeal Act, 1971, which came into effect on 15 November 1971. Previously, the Privy Council had ruled in Ibralebbe v The Queen that it remained the highest court of appeal in Ceylon notwithstanding
14875-424: Was for the Legislature of Singapore to decide whether there should be capital punishment in Singapore, and what offences should warrant capital punishment. It added that there was nothing unusual in a capital sentence being mandatory as its efficacy as a deterrent may diminish to some extent if it is not mandatory. At common law all capital sentences were mandatory, and this is still so for murder and offences against
15000-421: Was held that the words save in accordance with law in Article 9(1) of the Constitution "incline liberally in favour of legislative power, but the clear words cannot be altered by the court". On the facts, assuming that the appellants had been deprived of personal liberty pursuant to certain statutory provisions, this had been carried out in accordance with law and thus was not unconstitutional. In Ong Ah Chuan ,
15125-665: Was less than 3,500 rupees . In evaluating the challenge, the Supreme Court of India applied Ong Ah Chuan and identified "a rational connection between the legislative classifications and the object of the law". Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ( JCPC ) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies , the British Overseas Territories , some Commonwealth countries and
15250-581: Was that the Appeals Committee was technically a committee of the whole of the entire Privy Council, of which a minimum of three were required for a quorum. Since many members of the Privy Council were not lawyers, all members of the Appeals Committee had equal votes, and there was no requirement that any of the Privy Counsellors actually hearing a particular appeal had to be a lawyer, it became possible for certain parties to appeal to secure desired judgments by persuading nonlawyer Privy Counsellors to attend
15375-416: Was the Privy Council's intent to apply natural justice in a substantive sense, since this would mean that the court can strike down a provision for inconsistency with natural justice even if it satisfies the rational nexus test under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. It will also be hard to ascertain the limits of judicial power. However, the view has been expressed that such judicial activism would merely be
15500-443: Was thus held to be consistent with Article 9(1) of the Constitution. The appellants' contention concerning the mandatory death penalty, as understood by the Privy Council, was that the punishment was not in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 9(1) because the offence was so broadly drawn that it prevented the court from punishing offenders according to their individual blameworthiness. The Privy Council clarified that it
15625-525: Was transferred to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom . Judgments of the Judicial Committee are not generally binding on courts within the United Kingdom , having only persuasive authority , but are binding on all courts within any other Commonwealth country which still allows for appeals to the Judicial Committee. Where a binding precedent of the UK Supreme Court, or of the House of Lords , or of
#340659