After several postponements, the Singapore Court of Appeal will hear what may be Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam’s final appeal against his death sentence at the end of next month.
On Monday this week (Jan 24), the Straits Times reported that the court postponed the day’s hearing after the Malaysian’s lawyer requested for an adjournment.
The appeal was initially scheduled to be heard on Nov 30 last year.
Speaking to Malaysiakini, counsel N Surendran said the new court hearing will be between Feb 21 and March 4.
“It will be a date between Feb 21 and March 4. We don’t exactly know which date yet,” Surendran said when contacted.
Meanwhile, LF Violet Netto Advocates and Solicitors has taken over as Nagaenthran's lawyer in Singapore.
Nagaenthran's appeal is against the High Court’s decision to dismiss his application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge the execution.
His lawyers have also applied for him to be examined by a panel of psychiatrists.
The 33-year-old was sentenced to death in 2011 for trafficking 42.72g of diamorphine into Singapore. Heroin is made from diamorphine.
His lawyers say he has a mild intellectual disability due to his lower-than-average IQ of 69.
In June 2020, Singapore President Halimah Yacob rejected Nagaenthran’s clemency petition to have his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment.
International attention
He was initially scheduled to hang on Nov 10, 2021 but was granted a stay of execution when lawyer M Ravi filed an 11th-hour constitutional challenge.
Nagaenthran’s case has garnered significant attention, with particular criticism of Singapore’s move to execute someone with an intellectual disability.
Many have stepped in to plead for clemency on his behalf, from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob to Virgin Group founder Richard Branson, British actor Stephen Fry, the European Union, along with local and international human rights groups.
The case has also made international headlines.
Singapore maintains that Nagaenthran has been accorded full due process under the law.
Its courts also concluded that his mental responsibility for his offence was not substantially impaired and he “clearly understood” what he did was a crime. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.