Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):
… it would be a scandal to the administration of justice if, the same question having been disposed of by one case, the litigant were to be permitted by changing the form of the proceedings to set up the same case again.
Their Lordships accept that, if the constitutional motion raises a real issue for determination, it must be right for the courts to grant a stay prohibiting the carrying out of a sentence of death pending the determination of the constitutional motion. But it does not follow that there is an automatic right to a stay in all cases. If it is demonstrated that the constitutional motion is plainly and obviously bound to fail, those proceedings will be vexatious and could be struck out. If it can be demonstrated to the court from whom a stay of execution is sought that the constitutional motion is vexatious as being plainly and obviously ill-founded, then in their Lordships' view it is right for the court to refuse a stay even in death penalty cases.
Alfred Dodwell (Dodwell & Co LLC) (instructed), Chong Yean Yoong Jeannette-Florina (Archilex Law Corporation) for the applicant;
Francis Ng, Mohamed Faizal, and Zhuo Wenzhao (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the respondent