by MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
I refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 2 with specific reference to the nature and width of prosecutorial discretion as vested in the Attorney-General (AG) by Article 35(8) of the Constitution.
Ramalingam Ravinthran was charged with a capital drug offence, while his co-accused was charged with a non-capital drug offence. Both men committed the same offence, but the charge preferred against Ramalingam was not reduced to a non-capital one. In the aftermath of the court’s ruling, it was noteworthy that there were two relatively clear public camps on the matter, one contending that the AG as Public Prosecutor should explain how discretion is exercised in such cases. The other camp opined that the public should trust the AG, that he will carry out his duties in good faith.
In *Ramalingam*, the Court of Appeal accepted that the AG has no general obligation to disclose his reasons for a particular prosecutorial decision. I also note the Attorney-General’s Chambers issued a press release on 20th Jan 2011 on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, assuring the public that the decision to charge an individual is made very carefully.
Nonetheless, in view of the gravity of the punishment prescribed for drug offences that carry the mandatory death penalty, would it not be better for the AG to explain the reasons for his discretion to charge some accused offenders with a capital charge, and yet others for a non-capital offence for the same transaction? In addition, taking public interest into account, would not disclosure by the AG also engender greater trust in the legal system, and in the office of the AG?