In that case, the appellant argued that effecting a death sentence for drug trafficking by hanging is unconstitutional as a form of cruel and inhuman punishment not "in accordance with law".
Counsel for the appellant argued that this was not a case of an decision reviewable on ordinary administrative law grounds, but rather a case where the exercise of the power depended "upon the precedent establishment of an objective fact".
The appellants in that case pointed out that the Defamation Ordinance 1960, which presupposed the existence of the common law of defamation, had been enacted before the 1963 Constitution of the State of Singapore.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore were a small, non-violent group and that there was no evidence their activities were against public order in any manner.
As to Miami-Dade County, in light of our holding that the circuit court should have counted the undervote, we agree with appellants that the partial recount results should also be included in the total legal votes for this election.
The appellants argue that Section 377a violates Singapore's constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.A judgment is not expected for several months, but Tea Braun one of the appellants' legal advisers and the legal director for Human Dignity Trust, which challenges laws criminalising homosexuality is not optimistic.
Lord Gill said: "The appellants accept that it was within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to provide for a crofting community right to buy".
The appellants argued that the discretion was objective, and thus a court of law could review the grounds on which the discretion had been exercised.
In Chan Hiang Leng Colin, the appellants contended that a declaration might be obtained in proceedings taken under Order 53 of the Rules of Court.
In the appeal against Prakash J.'s judgment to the Court of Appeal, also called Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts (1996), counsel for the appellants argued that the restriction placed by the Minister on the importation, sale and distribution of the Jehovah's Witnesses publications was too wide and disproportionate.
In Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. P.P. (1994), counsel for the appellants argued that there had to be a "clear and immediate danger" to public order before the right of freedom of religion could be restricted, and in this case the restriction was unjustified since there had been no such threat at all.
