|
''Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor'' is a landmark decision delivered in 1980 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Singapore which deals with the constitutionality of section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (No. 5 of 1973) (now section 17 of the ) ("MDA"), and the mandatory death penalty by the Act for certain offences. The appellants contended that the presumption of trafficking under section 15 of the MDA violated Article 9(1) of the (now the ) and that the mandatory death penalty was arbitrary and violated Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Dismissing the appeal, the Privy Council clarified several issues of Singapore law. It explained that the word ''law'' in Article 9(1) includes fundamental rules of natural justice. The court also held that Article 12(1) does not prohibit differentiation between classes of people, but requires that like should be compared with like. It also laid out the "reasonable relation" test to determine if legislation is in breach of Article 12(1). ''Ong Ah Chuan'' has been referred to in subsequent cases. In some of them, attempts have been made to argue that certain legal principles are fundamental rules of natural justice, and thus constitutionally protected by Article 9(1). There has also been academic discussion concerning whether fundamental rules of natural justice enable the courts to examine the substantive fairness or reasonableness of laws. The ruling in ''Ong Ah Chuan'' that the mandatory death penalty is constitutional has not been followed in later Privy Council decisions. These cases were distinguished by the Singapore Court of Appeal in ''Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor'' (2010) on the basis that the constitutions involved in those cases contained express prohibitions against inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment, which the Singapore Constitution lacks. The reasonable relation test applied to Article 12(1) by the Privy Council has been applied in a number of local and foreign cases. It was reformulated into a three-stage test by the Court of Appeal in ''Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong'' (1998). The Court applied a modified version of the test to situations involving the discriminatory application of neutral laws in ''Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General'' (2009), and expressed the view that Article 12(1) would only be infringed in such cases where there was intentional and arbitrary discrimination, or inequalities due to inadvertence or inefficiency on a very substantial scale. The element of arbitrariness was also mentioned by the Court in ''Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs'' (1988) – it said a law that allows a public authority to exercise arbitrary discretionary power is in violation of Article 12(1). ==Facts== The case involved an appeal by two appellants, Ong Ah Chuan and Koh Chai Cheng, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – then Singapore's final appellate court – against their separate convictions under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 ("MDA").〔Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (No. 5 of 1973), s. 3, now the , s. 5 ("MDA"): see ("''Ong Ah Chuan''").〕 by the High Court of Singapore,〔''Public Prosecutor v. Ong Ah Chuan'' () S.L.R.(R.) 417, High Court (Singapore) ("''Ong Ah Chuan'' (H.C.)").〕 which were upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal.〔''Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor'' () S.L.R.(R.) 53, Court of Criminal Appeal (Singapore).〕 Ong Ah Chuan was charged for trafficking of heroin. Two narcotics officers witnessed the appellant putting a plastic bag into his car and followed him. The appellant drove to Bukit Timah Road, where he was arrested by the officers. The officers searched the appellant's car and found the heroin in his car.〔''Ong Ah Chuan'', p. 713, para. 3.〕 Koh Chai Cheng was charged for trafficking of heroin. The appellant brought the heroin into Singapore from Malaysia in order to sell it to a buyer, who was actually a police informer. The appellant was arrested when he was about to drive away from the meeting place and the heroin was discovered in the boot of his car.〔''Ong Ah Chuan'', p. 714, para. 4.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|