← All Authorities
Singapore Leading Case grounds illegalityrule of law

Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General

[2012] 2 SLR 49
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2012
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Prosecutorial discretion to charge co-offenders differently does not breach Art 12 unless exercised in bad faith or with bias.

Key Principle

Art 12; prosecutorial discretion; different charges for co-offenders; unconstitutionality only if bad faith or bias

Area of Law

constitutional

Related Cases

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 97 ALJR 1005

Indefinite administrative detention of a non-citizen with no real prospect of removal is unlawful as punitive and contrary to Ch III of the Australian Constitution, overruling Al-Kateb v Godwin.

Farm Transparency International v NSW (2022) 276 CLR 81

HCA upheld NSW ag-gag laws as valid notwithstanding a burden on the implied freedom of political communication, applying the structured proportionality test.

Palmer v Western Australia (2021) 272 CLR 505

HCA upheld WA COVID-19 border closure legislation as valid under s.92, finding restrictions on interstate movement were reasonably necessary and proportionate to protect public health.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorn...