SULAIMAN BIN JUMARI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tay Yong Kwang |
| Charges / claim | Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, April Phang, J Jayaletchmi |
Source: [2024] SGCA 40, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Case Significance
In Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 40, the Court of Appeal heard CA/CM 45/2024, a criminal motion filed by Mr Sulaiman bin Jumari on 14 October 2024. The applicant had been convicted on a capital charge of having in his possession not less than 52.75g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), as recorded in Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Jumari [2019] SGHC 210. The motion sought a stay of the execution order made in CA 25/2019 dated 2 December 2020, invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction and Articles 93 and 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
The applicant grounded his stay application on an ongoing civil proceeding, HC/OA 972/2024, after which he intended to file a post-appeal application in his criminal case. The matter was heard by Tay Yong Kwang JCA on 15 October 2024, with April Phang and J Jayaletchmi of the Attorney-General's Chambers appearing for the respondent, the Public Prosecutor. The judgment engaged constitutional questions of equal protection and the right to life and personal liberty.
[2024] SGCA 40 explained
SULAIMAN BIN JUMARI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGCA 40) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 15 October 2024. It is categorised under Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 4 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2024] SGCA 40 about?
SULAIMAN BIN JUMARI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGCA 40) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Constitutional Law — Equal protection of the law”, “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Stay of execution”, and “Constitutional Law — Fundamental liberties — Right to life and personal liberty”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGCA 40 consider?
The judgment refers to Applications in Capital Cases Act, Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGCA 40 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGCA 38 and [2024] SGHC 122. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2024] SGCA 40?
Within this corpus, [2024] SGCA 40 has been cited by 4 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
In this criminal motion, the applicant, who had been convicted on a capital charge of possessing not less than 52.75g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking and whose appeal had been dismissed, sought a stay of his execution on the basis of an ongoing High Court proceeding (OA 972/2024) and his stated intention to file a post-appeal application. The court found that the applicant had no basis to challenge his conviction and that, whether treated as a permission application for a post-appeal application or for a review application, it failed because he had no new material showing a miscarriage of justice. The court dismissed the application summarily without an oral hearing.
What did the applicant seek in CA/CM 45/2024 in Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor ([2024] SGCA 40)?
In CA/CM 45/2024, filed on 14 October 2024, Mr Sulaiman bin Jumari sought a stay of the execution order made in CA 25/2019 dated 2 December 2020, relying on the court's inherent jurisdiction, Articles 93 and 94 of the Constitution, and a pending civil proceeding, HC/OA 972/2024.
What was the underlying conviction in Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 40?
The applicant had been convicted on a capital charge of possessing not less than 52.75g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), in [2019] SGHC 210.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (6)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGCA 40)