User:Sgconlaw/Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v. Public Prosecutor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor is a constitutional law case decided in 2012 by the High Court of Singapore. The case concerns the constitutionality of several provisions in section 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA"). The case also clarified key constitutional concepts including judicial power, the Singapore Westminster model and the court's power to sentence.
This is a sandbox for an article that is being edited as part of an educational assignment called the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia project. If you are not a member of the project, please do not edit this article. To contact the project co-ordinator please leave a message at "User talk:Smuconlaw". |
Sgconlaw/Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v. Public Prosecutor | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Singapore |
Full case name | Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v. Public Prosecutor |
Decided | 10 August 2012 |
Citation(s) | [2012] SGHC 163, [2012] 4 S.L.R. 947, High Court (Singapore) |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | The Petitioner pleaded guilty to charges under the MDA, including one count of consumption of morphine. |
Related action(s) | Amazi bin Hawasi v. Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 S.L.R.(R.) 981, H.C. |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Chan Sek Keong C.J. |
Case opinions | |
Enhanced and mandatory minimum punishment provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act do not violate the principle of the separation of powers, Article 9 or Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore. |
Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu (the “Petitioner”) contended that the mandatory minimum and enhanced punishments for convicted drug offenders who were previously admitted to drug rehabilitation centres were unconstitutional. First, he argued that these punishments violated the principle of the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore ("the Singapore Constitution"). Secondly, he contended that the punishments were excessive and disproportionate, thereby being inconsistent with the right to life and personal liberty encapsulated in Article 9 of the Singapore Constitution. Finally, he submitted that the punishments violated the right to equality before the law under Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution.
The High Court held that the impugned provisions in section 33A of the MDA were constitutional. The court reasoned that the Judiciary's power to select a sentence within the range of punishments prescribed by the Legislature did not contravene the principle of separation of powers. In reaching this conclusion, the court clarified that the power to enact offences and prescribe punishments for their commission was not a judicial power, but a legislative one. The court also rejected the Petitioner's arguments regarding Article 9 because the principle of proportionality in imposing punishments did not apply to the legislative power to prescribe punishments. In addition, the court rejected the Petitioner’s arguments regarding Article 12 because his arguments were entirely misconceived.