Singapore's highest court said yesterday that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) is not allowed to forward copies of inmates' documents to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).
If the AGC wishes to have copies of letters and documents belonging to a prisoner, the proper procedure would be to obtain the prisoner's consent or an order of court, said the Court of Appeal.
The forwarding of documents was highlighted by the court in a judgment dismissing an appeal by two Malaysian inmates on death row seeking to stay their executions, pending investigations into claims that "unlawful" methods were being used in judicial executions.
After the appeal was first heard in April, one of the inmates complained that their correspondence with lawyers and family had been "illegally copied and forwarded" by prison officials to the AGC, which is the opposing party in the case.
The inmate, Datchinamurthy Kataiah, said this gave the AGC an "undue advantage" and sought an order preventing SPS from making copies of their documents.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal said the SPS is allowed to make copies of prisoners' documents under prison regulations, but not to forward them.
"These are documents and information that the SPS has access to by virtue of its administrative role... to screen and record letters, but there was no legal basis in the form of a positive legal right to forward copies of the same to the AGC," said the judgment, written by Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang.
The three-judge court accepted that it was an oversight in this case and not an attempt by the AGC to seek an advantage.
The two inmates, Datchinamurthy, 35, and Gobi Avedian, 32, were previously convicted and sentenced to death in separate proceedings for drug-related offences.
In January, Malaysia-based non-governmental organisation Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) claimed that executions in Singapore were carried out by kicking the back of the prisoner's neck if the rope broke.
The two inmates, represented by lawyer M. Ravi, applied to the High Court for an order to stay their executions and an order to grant immunity to a former prison officer who had given the information to LFL.
At a pre-trial conference, a representative from the AGC told the court that "we are expressly reserving all our rights against Mr Ravi".
The inmates said the statement amounted to a threat against Mr Ravi and sought another order to declare that their right to counsel had been breached. The AGC argued that this was common legal parlance, and that the Attorney-General was keeping all options open, including seeking costs personally against Mr Ravi.
The pair's applications were dismissed in February, and they appealed. Upholding the lower court decision, the Court of Appeal said the pair had not produced reliable evidence to support their claims about the execution methods.
It said there was no legal basis to grant immunity as the Attorney-General had already declined to do so. As for the AGC statement, it said it "might reasonably have been construed as intimidating", but there was no breach of right to counsel.
