Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General

[2025] SGCA 47 Court of Appeal 7 October 2025 CA/OAC 2/2025 17 min read
5 cases cited

Key facts

Court Court of Appeal
Decided
Judge Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Counsel Attorney-General's Chambers, Too Xing Ji LLC, Darren Ang Jin Wee, Terence Chua Seng Leng, Too Xing Ji, Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas

Source: [2025] SGCA 47, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (6)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

[2025] SGCA 47 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 7 October 2025 concerning Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing sentencing. The judgment was delivered by Woo Bih Li. The case was brought by Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman (applicant) against Attorney-General (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Too Xing Ji LLC and Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 5 cases and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

[2025] SGCA 47 explained

Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General ([2025] SGCA 47) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 7 October 2025. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2025] SGCA 47 about?

Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General ([2025] SGCA 47) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Execution — Stay of execution”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2025] SGCA 47 consider?

The judgment refers to Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment for importing diamorphine, filed a further application the day before his scheduled execution seeking a stay pending an application for a Certificate of Substantive Assistance from the Public Prosecutor, citing recent developments including Malaysian police interviewing him at Changi Prison. The court treated it as a PACC permission application. The application was summarily dismissed, as the court found the applicant had no standing to apply for a CSA under s 33B(2)(b) of the MDA, which is solely within the Public Prosecutor's constitutional prerogative.

What was decided in [2025] SGCA 47?

[2025] SGCA 47 (Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General) is a Court of Appeal decision from 7 October 2025 addressing Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically sentencing. The judgment was delivered by Woo Bih Li.

Who were the parties in Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman v Attorney-General ([2025] SGCA 47)?

The applicant in [2025] SGCA 47 was Pannir Selvam a/l Pranthaman, and the respondent was Attorney-General. Legal representation included Too Xing Ji LLC and Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 7 October 2025 in the Court of Appeal.

Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 47?

[2025] SGCA 47 was delivered by Woo Bih Li in the Court of Appeal on 7 October 2025. The case concerned Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGCA 47 cite?

[2025] SGCA 47 cites 5 prior decisions. It references Misuse of Drugs Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (5)

SG (1)
[2017] SGHC 144
SLR (4)
[2022] 2 SLR 421 [2022] 3 SLR 838 [2025] 1 SLR 1345 [2025] 1 SLR 237

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGCA 47)