AGC: Robust reviews before discretion is exercised
Internal guidelines exist; findings of innocence or guilt decided by courts
Purchase this article for republication
Buy SPH photosThe Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on Friday sought to reassure the public that its decisions to charge offenders involved in the same crime differently are done only after thorough reviews by many levels of officers.
There are internal guidelines that guide its officers and ultimately the finding of guilt or innocence is determined by the courts and not the AGC, it said in a statement.
The reassurance comes in the wake of a recent case that sparked debate on the issue of prosecutorial discretion.
Background story
Case that sparked the debate
RAMALINGAM Ravinthran and his accomplice Sundar Arujunan seemed destined to face the hangman, after they were arrested in 2006 for trafficking in cannabis.
Sundar, however, escaped the gallows when he was charged with trafficking in a shade less than the quantity that draws the mandatory death penalty.
This, after the Attorney-General exercised its prosecutorial discretion and reduced the amount of drugs specified in the charges against him.
But when Ramalingam was dealt with later, the quantities of drugs in the charges against him still meant the death penalty.
Sundar pleaded guilty to the lesser charges and was sentenced to 20 years' jail and 24 strokes of the cane.
Ramalingam, however, was convicted and put on death row.
After he had exhausted his avenues of appeal in September 2010, he filed a motion in an attempt to reopen his case.
Central to his application was that even though he and Sundar were involved in the same crime, he was prosecuted for capital offences whereas Sundar was accused of non-capital offences.
Ramalingam wanted his charges amended so there would be no difference in their punishment.
Last week, the Court of Appeal dismissed his motion in a 48-page written judgment delivered by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
CJ Chan in his judgment, said it is not unlawful or unconstitutional, for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs specified in a trafficker's charges, to differentiate from those of his accomplice.
Prosecutorial discretion refers to the powers of the Attorney-General to decide what charges to prefer against an accused person. It is a power that cannot be challenged except under exceptional circumstances such as when the Attorney-General has used it unfairly. The Attorney-General cannot be compelled to explain his use of discretion in deciding what offences to proceed with.
K. C. VIJAYAN
Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs in a trafficker's charges, to differentiate them from those of his accomplice.
