Stop reading at Abang and Mina.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...and-unlawful-executions-for-drug-trafficking/
“It is unconscionable that authorities in Singapore continue to cruelly pursue more executions in the name of drug control. There is no evidence that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect or that it has any impact on the use and availability of drugs. As countries around the world do away with the death penalty and embrace drug policy reform, Singapore’s authorities are doing neither.
“The only message that these executions send is that the government of Singapore is willing to once again defy international safeguards on the use of the death penalty.
“It is past time Singapore reverse course; consign the death penalty to the history books; and take a serious look at offering more effective protection from drug-related harm, such as by expanding access to health and social services, including for people who use drugs and addressing the underlying socio-economic causes that lead people to engage in the drug trade.
“We renew our call on governments, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) to increase their pressure on Singapore so that all executions end and drug control policies become rooted in the promotion and protection of human rights.
“This must start today, with an unequivocal condemnation of the set executions this week of two people convicted of drug trafficking.”
Background:
According to the Transformative Justice Collective, a Singaporean Malay man, who was sentenced to death in 2018 after being found guilty of trafficking around 50 grams of diamorphine (heroin) has had his execution set for Wednesday 26 July.
Singaporean national Saridewi Djamani was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty in 2018. Her execution has been reportedly set for Friday 28 July, which would be the first execution of a woman in Singapore in around 20 years. She was found guilty of possession of around 30 grams of diamorphine (heroin) for the purposes of trafficking.
Both the UNODC and the INCB – two UN bodies in charge of developing and monitoring drug policies – have condemned the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences and have urged governments to move towards abolition.
More than two-thirds of countries all over the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Singapore’s close neighbour Malaysia has observed an official moratorium on executions since 2018 and has recently repealed the mandatory death penalty, including for drug-related offences.
Singapore is one of only four countries, alongside China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, where executions for drug-related offences were confirmed in 2022. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally, in all cases and under any circumstances.
-----------------
Full judgement:
https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGHC_150
Conclusion
102 Having carefully considered the further evidence in totality, I conclude that Saridewi had at most been suffering from mild to moderate methamphetamine withdrawal during the statement-taking period. I agree with Dr Zakir’s assessment that her withdrawal symptoms were minimal and not noticeable, and she did not surface them, thus suggesting that they were not particularly debilitating.
103 In my assessment, Saridewi embellished her account of alleged withdrawal symptoms at the remitted hearing for self-serving purposes. Her alleged symptoms went far beyond what (if any) had been observed contemporaneously by the doctors, nurses and the SPS officers. She did not mention additional details of these symptoms at her trial. She also did not raise any complaints to the doctors or the nurses, or to the recording officer during the statement-taking period. Some of her alleged symptoms were not even mentioned to Dr Rajesh despite the fact that he had interviewed her on six separate occasions between March 2019 to October 2020.
104 I further find that Saridewi did not exhibit or suffer significant withdrawal symptoms at all material times. If Saridewi’s symptoms were indeed as serious as she claimed, it is implausible that all the doctors who examined her contemporaneously would not have noticed them, even if they did not adopt any specific methodology for detecting methamphetamine withdrawal. The nurses who observed her also generally did not notice clear symptoms which could be attributed solely to methamphetamine withdrawal.
105 The totality of the further evidence does not affect my earlier rulings in relation to Saridewi’s statements. Notwithstanding my finding that she had been suffering from mild to moderate methamphetamine withdrawal, Saridewi was still capable of providing intentional, detailed and lucid accounts in her statements. She provided specific and contextualised particulars which were only within her personal knowledge (see [94] above). She was also deliberate and consistent in fabricating a defence to the IO in all her statements that she was not involved in drug trafficking. Her ability to give her statements was thus not impaired.
106 Having regard to the further evidence at the remitted hearing, I am of the view that Saridewi has not raised any reasonable doubt as to her mental state and condition during the statement-taking period. I see no reason therefore to depart from my conclusion at the trial in relation to Saridewi’s guilt.
107 I would add that even if the statements recorded from 21 to 23 June 2016 are excluded from consideration, there is still sufficient evidence to support the Prosecution’s case. As explained in my GD at [61] to [69] in particular, Saridewi had failed to rebut the presumption under s 17 of the MDA that she was in possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and this remains so even without consideration of her statements.
108 I remit my findings on the further evidence accordingly to the Court of Appeal for its consideration.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...and-unlawful-executions-for-drug-trafficking/
Singapore: Stop two imminent and unlawful executions for drug trafficking
In response to news that two executions for drug-related offences have been set to take place on Wednesday 26 July and Friday 28 July, Amnesty International’s death penalty expert Chiara Sangiorgio said:“It is unconscionable that authorities in Singapore continue to cruelly pursue more executions in the name of drug control. There is no evidence that the death penalty has a unique deterrent effect or that it has any impact on the use and availability of drugs. As countries around the world do away with the death penalty and embrace drug policy reform, Singapore’s authorities are doing neither.
“The only message that these executions send is that the government of Singapore is willing to once again defy international safeguards on the use of the death penalty.
“It is past time Singapore reverse course; consign the death penalty to the history books; and take a serious look at offering more effective protection from drug-related harm, such as by expanding access to health and social services, including for people who use drugs and addressing the underlying socio-economic causes that lead people to engage in the drug trade.
“We renew our call on governments, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) to increase their pressure on Singapore so that all executions end and drug control policies become rooted in the promotion and protection of human rights.
“This must start today, with an unequivocal condemnation of the set executions this week of two people convicted of drug trafficking.”
Background:
According to the Transformative Justice Collective, a Singaporean Malay man, who was sentenced to death in 2018 after being found guilty of trafficking around 50 grams of diamorphine (heroin) has had his execution set for Wednesday 26 July.
Singaporean national Saridewi Djamani was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty in 2018. Her execution has been reportedly set for Friday 28 July, which would be the first execution of a woman in Singapore in around 20 years. She was found guilty of possession of around 30 grams of diamorphine (heroin) for the purposes of trafficking.
Both the UNODC and the INCB – two UN bodies in charge of developing and monitoring drug policies – have condemned the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences and have urged governments to move towards abolition.
More than two-thirds of countries all over the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Singapore’s close neighbour Malaysia has observed an official moratorium on executions since 2018 and has recently repealed the mandatory death penalty, including for drug-related offences.
Singapore is one of only four countries, alongside China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, where executions for drug-related offences were confirmed in 2022. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally, in all cases and under any circumstances.
-----------------
Full judgement:
https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGHC_150
Conclusion
102 Having carefully considered the further evidence in totality, I conclude that Saridewi had at most been suffering from mild to moderate methamphetamine withdrawal during the statement-taking period. I agree with Dr Zakir’s assessment that her withdrawal symptoms were minimal and not noticeable, and she did not surface them, thus suggesting that they were not particularly debilitating.
103 In my assessment, Saridewi embellished her account of alleged withdrawal symptoms at the remitted hearing for self-serving purposes. Her alleged symptoms went far beyond what (if any) had been observed contemporaneously by the doctors, nurses and the SPS officers. She did not mention additional details of these symptoms at her trial. She also did not raise any complaints to the doctors or the nurses, or to the recording officer during the statement-taking period. Some of her alleged symptoms were not even mentioned to Dr Rajesh despite the fact that he had interviewed her on six separate occasions between March 2019 to October 2020.
104 I further find that Saridewi did not exhibit or suffer significant withdrawal symptoms at all material times. If Saridewi’s symptoms were indeed as serious as she claimed, it is implausible that all the doctors who examined her contemporaneously would not have noticed them, even if they did not adopt any specific methodology for detecting methamphetamine withdrawal. The nurses who observed her also generally did not notice clear symptoms which could be attributed solely to methamphetamine withdrawal.
105 The totality of the further evidence does not affect my earlier rulings in relation to Saridewi’s statements. Notwithstanding my finding that she had been suffering from mild to moderate methamphetamine withdrawal, Saridewi was still capable of providing intentional, detailed and lucid accounts in her statements. She provided specific and contextualised particulars which were only within her personal knowledge (see [94] above). She was also deliberate and consistent in fabricating a defence to the IO in all her statements that she was not involved in drug trafficking. Her ability to give her statements was thus not impaired.
106 Having regard to the further evidence at the remitted hearing, I am of the view that Saridewi has not raised any reasonable doubt as to her mental state and condition during the statement-taking period. I see no reason therefore to depart from my conclusion at the trial in relation to Saridewi’s guilt.
107 I would add that even if the statements recorded from 21 to 23 June 2016 are excluded from consideration, there is still sufficient evidence to support the Prosecution’s case. As explained in my GD at [61] to [69] in particular, Saridewi had failed to rebut the presumption under s 17 of the MDA that she was in possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and this remains so even without consideration of her statements.
108 I remit my findings on the further evidence accordingly to the Court of Appeal for its consideration.
| See Kee Oon Judge of the High Court ------------- |
