User:Hjtan2012/sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General is an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Singapore following a 2008 conviction of the appellant of a capital drug trafficking offence. This article focuses on the justiciability of the clemency process, one of the key issues raised in the appeal.
This is the user sandbox of Hjtan2012. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review! |
Hjtan2012/sandbox | |
---|---|
Court | Court of Appeal of Singapore |
Full case name | Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General |
Decided | 4 April 2011 |
Citation(s) | [2011] 2 S.L.R. 1189; [2011] SGCA 9 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 1 S.L.R. 1 H.C.. |
Related action(s) | Public Prosecutor v Yong Vui Kong [2009] SGHC 4 H.C.; Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2010] 3 S.L.R. 489; [2010] SGCA 20 C.A.; Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2012] 2 S.L.R. 872; [2012] SGCA 23, C.A.. |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Chan Sek Keong C.J., Andrew Phang Boon Leong and V K Rajah JJA. |
Case opinions | |
The application for recusal of a judge must be made on credible grounds; and the rule against bias applies in the clemency process vis-à-vis the Cabinet. |
Before deciding on the other issues raised, the Court of Appeal had to decide whether or not the President’s clemency power under Art 22P of the Constitution of Singapore is subject to judicial review. This issue had not been brought before the court before. Chief Justice (as he then was) Chan Sek Keong held that while the courts may not review the merits of a clemency decision, clemency power was not without any legal restraints. He explained that the courts could review the decision if the power was exercised beyond its legal limits (ultra vires) or for an extraneous purpose (mala fide). He added that there had been constitutional duties placed on Cabinet by Art 22P, and the court can also review cases where the requirements had not been met.