First Drug Convict to Escape Gallows Under Amended Misuse of Drugs Act
Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor [2012] 2 SLR 903;
Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 772
Previously, those convicted of trafficking more than a specified quantity of drugs (for example, heroin weighing 15 grams or more) received the death penalty. This was so, no matter the circumstances of each individual. There were no exceptions.
1 January 2013 brought a sea change to the capital punishment framework in Singapore. After that date, such drug traffickers became eligible for life imprisonment, if certain conditions were met. Offenders who had been sentenced to death before 1 January 2013 could apply for re-sentencing if they met these conditions.
Dinesh Pillai a/l Raja Retnam (“Dinesh”) was one of our first clients. He was convicted and sentenced to death before the new death penalty framework came into force on 1 January 2013. His case came up before the Court of Appeal twice: first, his appeal to the Court of Appeal against the trial Judge’s verdict of guilty (Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor [2012] 2 SLR 903) and, second, his application for the Court of Appeal to quash its previous decision finding him guilty (Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 772). Both matters were decided against Dinesh.
Fortunately, Dinesh’s sentence of death was stayed pending the 2012 reforms to the capital punishment framework for drug offences. Subsequently, Dinesh successfully applied for his death penalty to be substituted with life imprisonment. This was on the basis that he was suffering from major depressive syndrome at the time of his offence, and this substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his offence. Dinesh was the first drug offender to escape the gallows under the reformed capital punishment framework.
Recent Resources
Road Traffic Act: Updated Framework for Repeat Drink Driving Offences
March 14, 2024
Introduction In December 2023, a significant judgment was handed down in the case of Lee Shin Nan v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 354 (“Lee Shin Nan”) which introduced a new framework for sentencing repeat drink driving offenders in Singapore. Here’s an overview of the sentencing process under this new framework. Stage 1: Starting Sentence Range […]
Eugene Thuraisingam LLP X Founders Doc: What is defamation from the case of Rachel Wong v Olivia Wu?
March 6, 2024
In a video collaboration between Eugene Thuraisingam LLP and Founders Doc, our Suang Wijaya and corporate lawyer Rachel Wong came together to share their insights into defamation laws in Singapore and how they were applied to the notable defamation lawsuit of Wong Leng Si Rachel v Wu Su Han Olivia [2022] SGHC 15. With the […]
Eugene Thuraisingam as a Guest on the LegalCentred podcast
March 1, 2024
In February, our partner, Eugene Thuraisingam was invited as a guest on the flagship podcast series, The Lawcast, run by the student-initiated project LegalCentred. He shared about his long-standing career in litigation, including his extensive experience in criminal defence and public interest matters. LegalCentred is a student-initiated project that aims to increase the accessibility and […]
February 13, 2024
We are pleased to announce that Eugene Thuraisingam, Johannes Hadi and Ng Yuan Siang have co-authored the Singapore chapter of Lexology Panoramic’s Anti-Bribery & Corruption Guide 2024. The publication is a market-leading guide providing an overview of both domestic and international anti-bribery and corruption laws. The guide is designed for use by corporations and legal […]
February 8, 2024
Introduction Under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code, which punishes a person who commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, a judge has a range of sentencing options – caning, jail term of up to 20 years, and life imprisonment. A father kills his two autistic sons,[1] a schoolboy kills his schoolmate,[2] and both the […]
