Warning: Directory /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-content/uploads/ not writable, please chmod to 777 in /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-includes/htmlpurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php on line 179

Warning: Directory /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-content/uploads/ not writable, please chmod to 777 in /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-includes/htmlpurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php on line 179

Warning: Directory /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-content/uploads/ not writable, please chmod to 777 in /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-includes/htmlpurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php on line 179
Singapore court dismisses final appeal of disabled Malaysian - Legal Marketing Experts

Singapore court dismisses final appeal of disabled Malaysian

Law Journals

The Singapore Court of Appeal on Tuesday dismissed a last-minute legal challenge filed by the mother of a mentally disabled Malaysian man in an attempt to halt his execution for drug trafficking.

The dismissal of the motion clears the way for the execution of Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, 34, to proceed Wednesday.

The motion, filed Monday by his mother, Panchalai Supermaniam, argued that Nagaenthran may not have received a fair trial because Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who presided over his previous failed appeals, was attorney general at the time he was convicted in 2010, creating a potential conflict of interest.

Nagaenthran’s lawyers and supporters say he has an IQ of 69, and that the execution of a mentally disabled person is prohibited under international human rights law.

The court ruled Tuesday that the motion was “devoid of merit” and that no court in the world would allow the matter to be prolonged “ad infinitum.”

“There must come a time when the last word of the court is the last word,” said Justice Andrew Phang, one of the judges.

Nagaenthran was arrested in 2009 for trafficking about 43 grams (1.5 ounces) of heroin into Singapore and was sentenced to death in 2010 under the country’s strict anti-drug laws.

He previously failed in appeals to the High Court in 2011, the Court of Appeal in 2019 and a petition for clemency to the president of Singapore.

Following the court ruling Tuesday, Nagaenthran asked for permission to hold his family’s hands in the courtroom as a “final wish.”

He was allowed to do so, and was granted two hours to spend with his family in the Supreme Court building.

He and his mother appeared in court Tuesday without a lawyer, with his mother saying she was unable to find one to represent her.


Related listings

  • Court: DWI fatality sentence needs more definition

    Court: DWI fatality sentence needs more definition

    Law Journals 04/17/2022

    A Louisiana appellate court has ordered a state judge to add details to the sentence of a man who pleaded guilty to killing a jogger while driving drunk in October 2020.A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Georg...

  • Israel revokes permit of Palestinian foreign minister

    Israel revokes permit of Palestinian foreign minister

    Law Journals 03/24/2021

    Israel on Sunday revoked the VIP permit of the Palestinian foreign minister after he returned to the West Bank from a trip to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, Israeli and Palestinian officials confirmed.The move appeared to be Israeli r...

  • Cable companies win lawsuit over Maine’s a la carte law

    Cable companies win lawsuit over Maine’s a la carte law

    Law Journals 02/25/2021

    A federal appeals court has rejected Maine’s law requiring cable companies to give subscribers the option of purchasing access to individual cable channels rather than bundled packages.A federal judge already delayed the law from going into eff...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.