SANJAY KRISHNAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 7–13 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | See Kee Oon |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Andre Jumabhoy LLC, Attorney-General's Chambers, Andre Darius Jumabhoy, Darren Ang Jin Wee, Eng Zhen Yang Aristotle Emmanuel, Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek |
Source: [2026] SGCA 40, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Sanjay Krishnan v Attorney-General [2026] SGCA 40 was decided by See Kee Oon JAD in the Court of Appeal on 8 September 2026. The applicant, convicted after trial in HC/CC 42/2017 of possession of not less than 2,375.1g of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to the mandatory death sentence, filed an application on 7 September 2026 under s 60G of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. His execution was scheduled for 9 September 2026. He sought permission to apply for a stay based on three statements recorded in March 2026 from Balachandran s/o Bernard, who had later recanted them. The issues were whether the material was reliable and whether the intended application had a reasonable prospect of success. The Court found the March Statements inconsistent and unreliable and summarily refused permission.
[2026] SGCA 40 explained
SANJAY KRISHNAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2026] SGCA 40) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 8 September 2026. 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 [2026] SGCA 40 about?
SANJAY KRISHNAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2026] SGCA 40) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Stay of execution — Applicant seeking stay of execution due to fresh evidence — Whether permission to make post-appeal application in capital case should be granted — Section 60G Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 40 consider?
The judgment refers to Applications in Capital Cases Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), 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.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 40 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGCA 40. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single Judge, heard an application by Sanjay Krishnan, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment with execution scheduled on 9 September 2026, for permission to make a post-appeal application in a capital case seeking a stay of execution. He relied on three March 2026 statements from one Balachandran s/o Bernard, which Balachandran later recanted. The Court found the statements inconsistent and of no evidential weight, held that the intended application had no reasonable prospect of success, and summarily refused permission under s 60G(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969.
What was Sanjay Krishnan v Attorney-General [2026] SGCA 40 about?
It was an application by Sanjay Krishnan, a prisoner awaiting capital punishment, for permission to make a post-appeal application in a capital case seeking a stay of execution, based on March 2026 statements by Balachandran s/o Bernard.
How did the Court of Appeal decide the stay application in [2026] SGCA 40?
See Kee Oon JAD held the March Statements carried no evidential weight because they were inconsistent and had been recanted. The intended application had no reasonable prospect of success, so permission was summarily refused under s 60G(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (5)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 40)