|
''Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor'' was a seminal case decided in 2010 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which, in response to a challenge by Yong Vui Kong, a convicted drug smuggler, held that the mandatory death penalty imposed by the ("MDA") for certain drug trafficking offences does not infringe Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore. Article 9(1) states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law." The Court of Appeal held that the term ''law'' does not exclude laws sanctioning inhuman punishment. This does not mean that all laws are justified whatever their nature. Laws which violate fundamental rules of natural justice, or those that are absurd or arbitrary cannot be considered law. Nonetheless, the threshold of culpability in imposing the mandatory death penalty for drug-related offences is a matter of policy and is therefore a matter for legislation and not for the courts to decide. The Court distinguished a line of Privy Council cases finding the mandatory death penalty to be unconstitutional, because the constitutions of the jurisdictions from which the appeals originated contained an explicit prohibition against inhuman punishment, which Singapore's Constitution lacks. In addition, though the Constitution of India also does not expressly prohibit inhuman punishment, the Court declined to follow a decision of the Supreme Court of India invalidating the mandatory death penalty for inconsistency with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which is similar to Singapore's Article 9(1). Among other things, it took the view that the test for constitutional validity under Article 9(1) is different from the test applied to India's Article 21. Finally, the Court was of the opinion that rules of customary international law cannot be incorporated into the meaning of the word ''law'' in Article 9(1) as this is not in accordance with the normal hierarchy of Singapore law, which envisages that customary international law may only be adopted into the common law if it is not inconsistent with existing domestic laws. In any case, there is insufficient state practice to demonstrate that customary international law regards the mandatory death penalty as an inhuman punishment. The Court of Appeal also held that the mandatory death penalty does not violate Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which states: "All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law." In its opinion, the differentia used in the MDA to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed for trafficking in diamorphine (heroin) cannot be said to be purely arbitrary, and bears a rational relation to the social object of the Act which is to prevent the growth of drug addiction in Singapore by stamping out the illicit drug trade. Following this case, the appellant Yong Vui Kong unsuccessfully challenged the process by which the President grants clemency to convicted persons on the advice of the Cabinet. ==Trial and subsequent events== The appellant, Yong Vui Kong, was a 19-year-old Malaysian national who was arrested in Singapore on 13 June 2007 and charged with trafficking in of diamorphine (heroin), a Class A controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA").〔 ("MDA").〕〔 ("''P.P. v. Yong Vui Kong'' (2009, H.C.)").〕 Yong told investigators that he had not been aware of the contents of the packages which he was asked to handle, maintaining instead that he had been delivering packages for his boss, a man known as "Ah Hiang", for whom he was working as a debt-collector. Ah Hiang had instructed him not to open the packages, and Yong had acted according to these instructions even though he was suspicious of the contents.〔''P.P. v. Yong Vui Kong'' (2009, H.C.), para. 3.〕 Following a trial in the High Court, Yong was found guilty of drug trafficking contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the MDA. Trafficking in more than of diamorphine attracts a mandatory death penalty. The Court was of the view that Yong must have known that he had been carrying drugs.〔''P.P. v. Yong Vui Kong'' (2009, H.C.), paras. 4–5.〕 Yong instructed his counsel to file an appeal, but later asked that the appeal be withdrawn. His case was eventually taken over by another lawyer, M. Ravi, who had been instructed by Yong's brother. In the meantime, Yong had also petitioned the President of Singapore for clemency. This was rejected on 20 November 2009 and Yong's execution was set for 4 December 2009. Ravi then filed an urgent motion to challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty prescribed by the MDA. The motion was heard by Justice Woo Bih Li, who granted a stay of execution pending a decision by the Court of Appeal of Singapore.〔.〕〔''Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor'' () 2 S.L.R. (Law Reports'' ) 192 at 195–196, paras. 3–5, Court of Appeal (Singapore).〕 In the hearing before the Court of Appeal,〔 Yong was allowed to pursue his appeal. The Court was of the opinion that the initial withdrawal of the appeal was a nullity as Yong had failed to appreciate the fact that he could have proceeded with his appeal on points of law, namely, challenging the compatibility of the mandatory death penalty with Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.〔.〕〔''Yong Vui Kong v. P.P.'' (2010, C.A.), pp. 202–204, paras. 25–28.〕 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「Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|