Lingkesvaran Rajendaren v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2026] SGCA 5 Court of Appeal 11 February 2026 • CA/OAC 2/2026 • 9 min read

10 cases cited

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing - Stay of execution

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Woo Bih Li Delivered

Counsel (4)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Anandan s/o Bala Counsel Respondent Foo Yang Yi Counsel Respondent Theong Li Han Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Lingkesvaran Rajendaren Applicant

Case Significance

[2026] SGCA 5 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 11 February 2026 concerning Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing stay of execution. The judgment was delivered by Woo Bih Li. The case was brought by Lingkesvaran Rajendaren (applicant) against Public Prosecutor (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 10 cases and references 3 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code, the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Summary

Hours before his scheduled execution, the applicant filed handwritten submissions seeking permission for a post-appeal application claiming his trial was unfair because witness statements were not translated to him, alleging a break in the chain of custody of drugs. The court summarily dismissed the application, finding it was an eleventh-hour attempt to delay execution with no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant's own defence at trial had been that he did not know the nature of the drugs, not that he did not deliver them.

What was decided in [2026] SGCA 5?

[2026] SGCA 5 (Lingkesvaran Rajendaren v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) is a Court of Appeal decision from 11 February 2026 addressing Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically stay of execution. The judgment was delivered by Woo Bih Li.

Who were the parties in Lingkesvaran Rajendaren v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR?

The applicant in [2026] SGCA 5 was Lingkesvaran Rajendaren, and the respondent was Public Prosecutor. Legal representation included Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 11 February 2026 in the Court of Appeal.