The Singapore Court of Appeal on Tuesday dismissed a bid for leniency by an Indian-origin Malaysian drug trafficker who was sentenced to demise in 2010, in accordance with a media report.
Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, 34, had appealed towards a High Court choice that dismissed his utility to begin judicial evaluate proceedings on the idea that he purportedly possessed the psychological age of somebody under 18.
The Malaysian nationwide had additionally mounted a prison movement to be assessed by an unbiased panel of psychiatrists, with a keep of execution within the meantime.
Delivering the decision on behalf of a five-judge panel, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon dismissed the appellant’s case as “baseless and without merit, both as a matter of fact and of law”, Channel News Asia reported.
“In our judgment, these proceedings constitute a blatant and egregious abuse of the court’s processes,” stated the Court of Appeal.
“They have been conducted with the seeming aim of unjustifiably delaying the carrying into effect of the sentence imposed on the appellant.”
Nagaenthran Dharmalingam was sentenced to demise in 2010 for importing 42.72g of heroin into Singapore in 2009 in a bundle strapped to his thigh.
He beforehand failed in his appeals to the High Court in 2011, to the Apex Court in 2019, and in his petition to the president for clemency.
Nagaenthran Dharmalingam was represented by Violet Netto. His former lawyer Ravi Madasamy, higher often called M Ravi, was additionally in attendance.
Earlier this month, Netto had argued for him to obtain an “independent” psychiatric evaluation and “up-to-date full neuro-cognitive test” to judge his competence to be executed and prescribe the required remedy.
The prosecution had responded that there was no dependable proof that Nagaenthran’s psychological situation had deteriorated and that he was not competent for execution, and no foundation to grant the applying for him to be assessed by a panel of psychiatrists.
The Court of Appeal stated the appellant’s central argument was that “because of an alleged deterioration in the appellant’s mental faculties since the time of his offence, the sentence of death cannot be allowed to be carried out”.
However, there was no admissible proof to indicate such a decline in Nagenthran’s psychological situation.
The solely proof supplied for the applying was an affidavit of Ravi during which he made a “bare assertion” concerning the appellant’s psychological age.
Concluding its judgment, the Court of Appeal stated the imposition and finishing up of the demise penalty had been all the time “difficult matters”.
“Counsel may well have passionate views that run counter to imposition of the death penalty. At a societal level, the proper recourse for them and indeed for anyone similarly situated is to seek legislative change if they are minded to do so,” it stated.
“But as long as the law validly provides for the imposition of capital punishment in the specified circumstances, it is improper for counsel to abuse the process of the court and thereby bring the administration of criminal justice into disrepute by filing one hopeless application after another and by drip-feeding the supposed evidence,” the ruling concluded.