JUMAAT BIN MOHAMED SAYED & 3 Ors v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Judith Prakash, See Kee Oon, Sundaresh Menon, Woo Bih Li |
| Charges / claim | Courts and Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Chooi Jing Yen LLC, Colin Seow Chambers LLC, Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Goh Yihan, Hay Hung Chun, Huang Qianwei, Ng Yuan Siang, Poh Hui Jing Claire, Suang Wijaya, Teo Wei Ren Marcus, Theong Li Han, Wong Woon Kwong |
Source: [2025] SGCA 40, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (5)
Counsel (14)
Case Significance
[2025] SGCA 40 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 28 August 2025 concerning Constitutional Law, Courts and Jurisdiction, and Criminal Law, specifically addressing jurisdiction, equality before the law, and constitution. The judgment was delivered by Sundaresh Menon, with Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Judith Prakash on the coram. The case was brought by Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah and others (applicant) against Attorney-General (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Chooi Jing Yen LLC and Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 51 cases (49 Singapore, 2 foreign) and references 8 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code, the Drugs Act, and the Evidence Act. This decision has been cited by 1 subsequent judgment in the dataset.
Summary
Four prisoners awaiting capital punishment challenged the constitutionality of the presumptions in ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, arguing they violated the right to life under Art 9(1) and the right to equality under Art 12(1) of the Constitution. A five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal was convened to hear the matter, which also addressed the proper interpretation of the presumption of innocence in Singapore law. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application in its entirety, holding the MDA presumptions were constitutional and did not violate the presumption of innocence.
What was decided in [2025] SGCA 40?
[2025] SGCA 40 (JUMAAT BIN MOHAMED SAYED & 3 Ors v ATTORNEY-GENERAL) is a Court of Appeal decision from 28 August 2025 addressing Constitutional Law, Courts and Jurisdiction, and Criminal Law, specifically jurisdiction, equality before the law, and constitution. The judgment was delivered by Sundaresh Menon.
Who were the parties in JUMAAT BIN MOHAMED SAYED & 3 Ors v ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2025] SGCA 40)?
The applicant in [2025] SGCA 40 was Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah, Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, and the respondent was Attorney-General. Legal representation included Chooi Jing Yen LLC and Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 28 August 2025 in the Court of Appeal.
Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 40?
[2025] SGCA 40 was delivered by Sundaresh Menon in the Court of Appeal on 28 August 2025. Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Judith Prakash and See Kee Oon also sat on the coram. The case concerned Constitutional Law, Courts and Jurisdiction, and Criminal Law.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGCA 40 cite?
[2025] SGCA 40 cites 51 prior decisions, including 2 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Criminal Procedure Code, Drugs Act, Evidence Act. The decision has itself been cited by 1 subsequent judgment.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (51)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGCA 40)