Court rejects bid by 3 to set aside death sentences

 

Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram said the mandatory death sentence imposed on his clients was unconstitutional and unlawful.

PUTRAJAYA: Three individuals on death row have failed in their bids to set aside the death sentence imposed on them for murder and drug trafficking.

They had claimed that the mandatory death penalty provided under the law was unlawful.

In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court five-member panel led by Court of Appeal president Rohana Yusuf, dismissed the trio’s application seeking leave for a review of the Federal Court’s earlier decisions in affirming their death sentences.

The other judges were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Federal Court judges Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Mary Lim and Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal.

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Ads by 

Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram, representing G Theenesh, M Thurkeswaran and Ooi Chun Huat, submitted that the mandatory death sentence imposed on his clients was unconstitutional and unlawful as it violated their right to life or personal liberty under Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution.

He said the mandatory punishment with death violated any right to be heard on the sentence, violating an accused’s right to a fair trial.

Sri Ram said the power to determine guilt or innocence and the power to sentence, including the power to determine the measure of punishment, was a judicial power and it should be exercised by the judiciary and not by Parliament.

He said the mandatory death sentence under those two sections was not in accordance with the fundamental rights enshrined under the Federal Constitution.

On May 19, last year, the Federal Court affirmed the death sentence imposed on Theenesh and Thurkeswaran for the murder of an unemployed man, B Muniandy, while Ooi’s death sentence for trafficking in 6,104.4gm of methamphetamine was upheld by the Federal Court on Sept 1, 2016.

A murder offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and a drug trafficking offence under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 mandate a death sentence to be imposed on the convicted person.

Deputy public prosecutor How May Ling, however, argued that the cases before the court were not fit and proper cases to be given leave for review as they involved interpretation of the law which was a matter of opinion and did not fall under the limited and strict requirement of Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995.

“The mandatory death penalty against them is a correct sentence prescribed by law. The sentence was imposed after a full trial where conviction and sentence by the High Court judge were affirmed by the Court of Appeal and by the Federal Court. - FMT