PANNIR SELVAM PRANTHAMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SINGAPORE
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Woo Bih Li |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek, Teo Siu Ming, Terence Chua Seng Leng |
Source: [2025] SGCA 7, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
[2025] SGCA 7 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 19 February 2025 concerning Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing stay of execution. The judgment was delivered by Woo Bih Li. The case was brought by Pannir Selvam Pranthaman (applicant) against Attorney-General of Singapore (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 22 cases and references 5 statutory provisions, including the Applications in Capital Cases Act, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Legal Profession Act.
[2025] SGCA 7 explained
PANNIR SELVAM PRANTHAMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SINGAPORE ([2025] SGCA 7) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 19 February 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 7 about?
PANNIR SELVAM PRANTHAMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SINGAPORE ([2025] SGCA 7) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — 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 7 consider?
The judgment refers to Applications in Capital Cases Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Legal Profession Act (Cap 161), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2025] SGCA 7 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 20 and [2024] SGCA 56. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment for importing diamorphine scheduled for execution the next day, applied for permission to make a PACC application seeking a stay of execution on three grounds: a pending disciplinary complaint against his former counsel, a pending constitutional challenge to MDA presumptions, and alleged disclosure of his prison correspondence. The court granted permission on the first two grounds and ordered a stay of execution pending the PACC application, finding a reasonable prospect of success particularly on the disciplinary complaint ground.
What was decided in [2025] SGCA 7?
[2025] SGCA 7 (PANNIR SELVAM PRANTHAMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SINGAPORE) is a Court of Appeal decision from 19 February 2025 addressing Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically stay of execution. The judgment was delivered by Woo Bih Li.
Who were the parties in PANNIR SELVAM PRANTHAMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SINGAPORE ([2025] SGCA 7)?
The applicant in [2025] SGCA 7 was Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, and the respondent was Attorney-General of Singapore. Legal representation included Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 19 February 2025 in the Court of Appeal.
Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 7?
[2025] SGCA 7 was delivered by Woo Bih Li in the Court of Appeal on 19 February 2025. The case concerned Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGCA 7 cite?
[2025] SGCA 7 cites 22 prior decisions. It references Applications in Capital Cases Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Legal Profession Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (22)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGCA 7)