JUMAAT BIN MOHAMED SAYED & 3 Ors v ATTORNEY-GENERAL

[2025] SGCA 40 Court of Appeal 28 August 2025 • CA/CA 2/2023 ( CA/SUM 8/2023,CA/SUM 16/2023 ) • 99 min read

51 cases cited (49 SG, 2 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Courts and Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction Constitutional Law — Equality before the law Constitutional Law — Constitution — Interpretation Constitutional Law — Natural Justice — Principles of natural justice Constitutional Law — Fundamental Liberties — Right to life and personal liberty Criminal Law — Statutory Offences — Misuse of Drugs Act — Presumptions — Sections 17 and 18

Practice Areas

Courts and Jurisdiction Constitutional Law Criminal Law

Judges (5)

Belinda Ang Saw Ean Coram Judith Prakash Coram See Kee Oon Coram Sundaresh Menon Delivered Woo Bih Li Coram

Counsel (14)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Chooi Jing Yen LLC Firm Colin Seow Chambers LLC Firm Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Firm Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam Counsel Applicant Goh Yihan Counsel Respondent Hay Hung Chun Counsel Respondent Huang Qianwei Counsel Applicant Ng Yuan Siang Counsel Applicant Poh Hui Jing Claire Counsel Respondent Suang Wijaya Counsel Applicant Teo Wei Ren Marcus Counsel Applicant Theong Li Han Counsel Respondent Wong Woon Kwong Counsel Respondent

Parties (5)

Attorney-General Respondent Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah Applicant Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed Applicant Lingkesvaran Rajendaren Applicant Saminathan Selvaraju Applicant

Case Significance

[2025] SGCA 40 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 28 August 2025 concerning Constitutional Law, Courts and Jurisdiction, and Criminal Law, specifically addressing jurisdiction, equality before the law, and constitution. The judgment was delivered by Sundaresh Menon, with Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Judith Prakash on the coram. The case was brought by Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah and others (applicant) against Attorney-General (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Chooi Jing Yen LLC and Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 51 cases (49 Singapore, 2 foreign) and references 8 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code, the Drugs Act, and the Evidence Act. This decision has been cited by 1 subsequent judgment in the dataset.

Summary

Four prisoners awaiting capital punishment challenged the constitutionality of the presumptions in ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, arguing they violated the right to life under Art 9(1) and the right to equality under Art 12(1) of the Constitution. A five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal was convened to hear the matter, which also addressed the proper interpretation of the presumption of innocence in Singapore law. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application in its entirety, holding the MDA presumptions were constitutional and did not violate the presumption of innocence.

What was decided in [2025] SGCA 40?

[2025] SGCA 40 (JUMAAT BIN MOHAMED SAYED & 3 Ors v ATTORNEY-GENERAL) is a Court of Appeal decision from 28 August 2025 addressing Constitutional Law, Courts and Jurisdiction, and Criminal Law, specifically jurisdiction, equality before the law, and constitution. The judgment was delivered by Sundaresh Menon.

Who were the parties in JUMAAT BIN MOHAMED SAYED & 3 Ors v ATTORNEY-GENERAL?

The applicant in [2025] SGCA 40 was Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, and the respondent was Attorney-General. Legal representation included Chooi Jing Yen LLC and Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 28 August 2025 in the Court of Appeal.

Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 40?

[2025] SGCA 40 was delivered by Sundaresh Menon in the Court of Appeal on 28 August 2025. Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Judith Prakash and See Kee Oon also sat on the coram. The case concerned Constitutional Law, Courts and Jurisdiction, and Criminal Law.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGCA 40 cite?

[2025] SGCA 40 cites 51 prior decisions, including 2 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Criminal Procedure Code, Drugs Act, Evidence Act. The decision has itself been cited by 1 subsequent judgment.

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)

s 394H

Drugs Act

s 15

Evidence Act (Cap 97)

s 108

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)

s 15

Penal Code (Cap 224)

Rev Ed) and the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)

s 58(4)(b)

The requirement that the Prosecution has to prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt is firmly embedded and entrenched in the Evidence Act (Cap 97)

Cases Cited (51)

SG (5)

[1999] SGCA 38 [2011] SGCA 38 [2017] SGCA 41 [2022] SGHC 291 [2024] SGHC 24

SLR (44)

[1993] 2 SLR(R) 1 [1994] 3 SLR(R) 209 [1996] 3 SLR(R) 655 [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 [2002] 1 SLR(R) 633 [2004] 4 SLR(R) 451 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686 [2010] 3 SLR 489 [2011] 2 SLR 1189 [2012] 3 SLR 34 [2013] 4 SLR 150 [2014] 3 SLR 357 [2014] 3 SLR 721 [2015] 1 SLR 26 [2015] 2 SLR 1129 [2015] 4 SLR 922 [2017] 1 SLR 1 [2017] 1 SLR 173 [2017] 1 SLR 257 [2017] 1 SLR 633 [2017] 1 SLR 771 [2018] 1 SLR 499 [2018] 2 SLR 1119 [2019] 1 SLR 1003 [2020] 1 SLR 1374 [2020] 1 SLR 486 [2020] 1 SLR 907 [2020] 1 SLR 984 [2020] 2 SLR 621 [2020] 2 SLR 95 [2021] 1 SLR 67 [2021] 1 SLR 809 [2022] 1 SLR 1347 [2022] 1 SLR 535 [2022] 2 SLR 538 [2023] 1 SLR 1437 [2024] 1 SLR 759 [2024] 2 SLR 410

UK (1)

[1935] AC 462

MY (1)

[1963] MLJ 355

Cited By (1)

[2025] SGCA 43

PANNIR SELVAM PRANTHAMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SINGAPORE

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGCA 40)