Clause 3

by inserting, immediately after paragraph (i) of section 313, the following paragraph:“(ia)the warrant may be carried out unless —

the Court of Appeal has granted a stay of execution;

there is an application for permission to apply for a stay of execution, or an application for a stay of execution, filed in the Court of Appeal and served on the Singapore Prison Service (unless any prescribed exemption from such service applies) in accordance with the regulations made under section 428; or

the President has ordered a respite of the execution of the warrant pursuant to paragraph (h);”;

by renumbering section 313 as subsection (1) of that section, and by inserting immediately thereafter the following subsections:“(2) Despite subsection (1)(ia)(ii), the warrant may be carried out if —

the application mentioned in that provision has been filed by a PACP who had previously been found —

by the Court of Appeal to have abused the process of the court in relation to a relevant application that was filed on or after the date of commencement of the Post‑appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act 2022; or

by the Court of Appeal to have abused the process of the court in order to delay or frustrate the carrying out of the sentence of death in relation to an application (other than a relevant application) or an action that was filed on or after the date mentioned in sub‑paragraph (i); and

the PACP does not have the permission of the Court of Appeal to make a PACC application under section 60G of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, or to make a review application under section 394H.(3) In subsection (2), “PACC application”, “PACP” and “relevant application” have the meanings given by section 60F of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969.”;

by deleting the words “section 313(i)” in section 324 and substituting the words “section 313(1)(i)”;

by inserting, immediately before the definition of “application for permission” in section 394F(1), the following definition:“ “application for PACC permission” has the meaning given by section 60F of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969;”;

by inserting, immediately after the definition of “civil application” in section 394F(1), the following definition:“ “post-appeal application in a capital case” or “PACC application” has the meaning given by section 60F of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969;”;

by deleting the full-stop at the end of the definition of “review application” in section 394F(1) and substituting a semi‑colon, and by inserting immediately thereafter the following definition:“ “specified application” means a civil application, an application for PACC permission, or a PACC application.”;

by deleting the words “civil application” wherever they appear in section 394F(2) and substituting in each case the words “specified application”;

by inserting, immediately after the words “in the Court of Appeal” in section 394H(6)(a), the words “, or by 3 or any greater uneven number of Judges sitting in the Court of Appeal”;

by deleting paragraph (b) of section 394H(6) and substituting the following paragraph:“(b)in any case where the appellate court is the General Division of the High Court —

by the Judge who made the decision to be reviewed or, if that Judge is not available, by any Judge;

by the Judges who made the decision to be reviewed, or by any one of those Judges, or if none of those Judges are available, by any Judge; or

by 3 or any greater uneven number of Judges sitting in the General Division of the High Court.”;

by inserting, immediately after subsection (6) of section 394H, the following subsection:“(6A) In deciding whether or not to grant an application for permission, the appellate court must consider the following matters:

whether the conditions or the requirements in sections 394G, 394J and 394K are satisfied;

whether there was any delay in filing the application for permission after the applicant or counsel for the applicant had obtained the material mentioned in section 394J(2) and the reasons for the delay;

whether subsection (3) is complied with;

whether the review application to be made has a reasonable prospect of success.”;

by inserting, immediately after the words “appellate court” in section 394H(8), the words “, in addition to considering the matters mentioned in subsection (6A)”;

by inserting, immediately after the words “appellate court” in section 394H(9), the words “, in addition to considering the matters mentioned in subsection (6A)”;

by inserting, immediately after subsection (9) of section 394H, the following subsection:“(10) The appellate court may —

before deciding whether to grant an application for permission;

when granting permission to make a review application; or

when summarily granting permission to make a review application,do one or both of the following:

make any incidental directions or give any interim orders (including a stay of execution of the sentence) as the court considers necessary;

take additional evidence.”;

by deleting the words “civil application” in section 394I(6) and substituting the words “specified application”;

by deleting the words “civil application” in section 394I(7)(c) and (d) and substituting in each case the words “specified application”;

by inserting, immediately after subsection (12) of section 394I, the following subsection:“(13) The appellate court may —

before deciding a review application;

when deciding a review application; or

when summarily deciding a review application,do one or both of the following:

make any incidental directions or give any interim orders (including a stay of execution of the sentence) as the court considers necessary;

take additional evidence.”; and

by deleting the words “civil application” wherever they appear in section 394K(2)(a) and (b) and substituting in each case the words “specified application”.