Singapore is one of the remaining countries in the world that still practices the death penalty. The outcome of the case in Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 102 demonstrates that this is a practice that should be abolished, not only in Singapore but worldwide. 

THE GOBI CASES

The applicant in this case, Gobi a/l Avedian, worked as a drug courier, smuggling drugs into Singapore. He was reportedly told that the drugs are used recreationally in discos and are not deemed serious. He was under the impression that if he was caught he would receive a fine or similar small punishment. In December 2014 he was arrested for importing 40.22g of heroin into Singapore, a crime which carries the death penalty. 

Under Section 7 of the Singapore Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) “it shall be an offence for a person to import into or export from Singapore a controlled drug” listed under Schedule 1 of the Act. This offence is punishable by death. Gobi’s defence was that he rebutted the presumption under Section 18 (2) of the MDA that “Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug.” Gobi argued that he had no knowledge that the drugs were serious drugs that attract the death penalty. The High Court subsequently reduced the offence to “attempted drug importation” due to the consistency of his evidence and his demeanour. 

The prosecution appealed the verdict on the grounds that the judge erred in reaching that decision. The Court of Appeal was not convinced that the defendant rebutted the presumption under Section 18 (2). They considered it was not enough for the defendant to say that he simply did not know that the drugs were illegal, despite the reassurances that he was given that they were “not serious”. This led to the Court of Appeal convicting Gobi on the original charge and imposing the death penalty.

In 2019, the applicant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal requesting a review of its earlier decision, which the Attorney General opposed. The Court of Appeal proceeded with its review and referred to the decision in Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor [2019] 2 SLR 254 in which it was held that wilful blindness cannot be considered when assessing whether there is a presumption of knowledge in Section18 (2) of the MDA. According to the Court of Appeal, the prosecution’s case before the High Court argued for wilful blindness to the nature of the drugs. The Court of Appeal overturned Gobi’s death sentence, because the prosecution failed to prove “beyond reasonable doubt that Gobi had been ‘wilfully blind’”. Gobi was instead sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane. 

Had Gobi not appealed the initial judgment by the Court of Appeal he would have lost his life even though the prosecution did not prove its case.

DEATH PENALTY IN SINGAPORE

According to human rights organisation Amnesty International, there were four executions, twelve recorded death sentences, and more than 40 people awaiting execution in Singapore at the end of 2019. The number of executions carried out was reduced by 69% compared to 2018, where thirteen people were executed in Singapore.

In Singapore there are 32 offences that attract the death penalty. However, there are four offences which warrant a mandatory death sentence and thus do not take into account any mitigating circumstances. These are murder, drug trafficking, terrorism, and possession of unauthorised firearms, ammunition, or explosives. 

The death penalty is not something that should be taken lightly, as it is irreversible and irreparable. Allowing the courts to pass down the death penalty for 32 offences increases the country’s need for accountability in the eyes of the public if it later transpires that they wrongfully convicted a person who was executed. 

DEATH PENALTY WORLDWIDE

At present, 106 out of 195 countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Approximately 657 people were executed in 2019, excluding in China, which has allegedly executed thousands of people.

Not only is the death penalty ethically wrong, it is a violation of human rights under Article 3 (right to life) and Article 5 (right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment) of the of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 6 (2) of the ICCPR allows the death penalty to be carried out “for the most serious crimes” in countries that have yet to abolish the death penalty. There is no definition for what constitutes a “serious crime”. As this provision could lead to different interpretations of the term, it allows countries to maintain the death penalty for various crimes in comparison to other countries.

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1971 adopted Resolution 2857 (XXVI), which encouraged states to limit “the number of offences for which capital punishment may be imposed, with a view to the desirability of abolishing this punishment in all countries”. 

For those countries that have not abolished the death penalty, the UN Economic and Social Council adopted Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, which reiterates that the death penalty should only be imposed for the most serious crimes. 

In 2018 the UN further attempted to persuade the remaining states to abolish the death penalty by calling for a worldwide moratorium, which would temporarily put a stop to capital punishment. 120 nations supported this call, which was a slight increase from the 117 countries that supported the previous call for a moratorium on the death penalty in 2016. This positive attitude demonstrates that most countries are willing to work together to better the world by making it free of the death penalty.  

REMAINING CHALLENGES

Some states argue that the death penalty deters others from committing similar offences. However, there is no solid evidence indicating that there is a reduction in such crimes as a direct result of the punishment. Furthermore, some states argue that the death penalty should be maintained for offences such as murder as it is seen as “an eye for an eye” or retribution. However, as can be seen from the Gobi case, among many others, courts may hand down an unjust sentence. The death penalty does not just violate one person’s right, it also affects their relatives and loved ones. Sometimes further evidence is brought to light, but if a person was previously executed and later found innocent there is no way to repair the damage caused to the family of the victim. 

No one should have the power to authorise the death of another person as it strips away their dignity, their rights, and, quite simply, their life. In order to reach a world free of the death penalty, states that continue to exercise this practice should be held accountable through sanctions. If such states believe that death penalty will deter people from committing crimes, then maybe sanctions will deter them from imposing the death sentence on their people. 

After having completed the Bar Professional Training Course (2018), Safia currently working as a Costs Advisor in a law firm. Her life goal is to make a positive change in the society we live in, no matter how small that change might be.

LinkedIn