Rights of accused compromised under Criminal Procedure Code
-
Rights of accused compromised under present Criminal Procedure Code
The rights of the accused being investigated for a crime was a subject of debate in Parliament by lawyer MPs who argued for their access to a lawyer.
Under current practices, suspects are hauled up for investigations by the police without a counsel by their side. They are also not aware of the fact that they have the right to remain silent so as not to incriminate themselves.
As such, the Singapore police has overwhelming powers of investigations which place the onus on the accused to prove their innocence instead of the other way round.
MPs suggested that a time limit be set, after which a person being investigated for a crime should be allowed to see a lawyer.
Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo said:
“I appreciate and support the importance of allowing the police to go about their investigations without the accused playing ‘legal games’ with them. But there must be some limit to this.”
His views were shared by NCMP Sylvia Lim who pressed for a statutory time limit after which the accused should be granted access to legal counsel.
In other countries like Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, lawyers are permitted to accompany the accused for his/her statement to be taken by the police, but not in Singapore where there is always a possibility that they may be intimidated by the investigation officer into self-incrimination.
In a recent case, an elderly woman was charged in court for poisoning her husband. She later said she was intimidated by the investigating officer into saying so in her statement which was nevertheless still admitted as evidence in court.
Urgent reforms in the Criminal Procedure Code is needed to prevent possible abuses of power by the Singapore police and to safeguard the rights of the accused who should be innocent until proven otherwise in court.
-
legal games is fun in america.
-
Originally posted by 4sg:
Rights of accused compromised under present Criminal Procedure Code
The rights of the accused being investigated for a crime was a subject of debate in Parliament by lawyer MPs who argued for their access to a lawyer.
Under current practices, suspects are hauled up for investigations by the police without a counsel by their side. They are also not aware of the fact that they have the right to remain silent so as not to incriminate themselves.
As such, the Singapore police has overwhelming powers of investigations which place the onus on the accused to prove their innocence instead of the other way round.
MPs suggested that a time limit be set, after which a person being investigated for a crime should be allowed to see a lawyer.
Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo said:
“I appreciate and support the importance of allowing the police to go about their investigations without the accused playing ‘legal games’ with them. But there must be some limit to this.”
His views were shared by NCMP Sylvia Lim who pressed for a statutory time limit after which the accused should be granted access to legal counsel.
In other countries like Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, lawyers are permitted to accompany the accused for his/her statement to be taken by the police, but not in Singapore where there is always a possibility that they may be intimidated by the investigation officer into self-incrimination.
In a recent case, an elderly woman was charged in court for poisoning her husband. She later said she was intimidated by the investigating officer into saying so in her statement which was nevertheless still admitted as evidence in court.
Urgent reforms in the Criminal Procedure Code is needed to prevent possible abuses of power by the Singapore police and to safeguard the rights of the accused who should be innocent until proven otherwise in court.
Your post is as inaccurate as it is wrong. As it stands, there is nothing preventing counsel from being present with their clients whenever called up for Police investigation. However, should counsel be present, in the event that the entire case goes to trial, it is only inevitable for the lawyer to be called up as a prosecution witness, simply because the lawyer was there to witness the interaction between the investigation officer and the accused person / suspect.
the catch lies here: if the defence lawyer becomes a prosecution witness, how can he/she then serve his client? there will, no doubt, be a conflict of interest, and as such, the lawyer will be unable to serve the best interests of his clients. this is why some lawyers, even when asked to be present, choose not to be present with their clients. it will affect their livelihood.
Your claim that there is a "right to remain silent" is also wrong, especially in SIngaporean context. I draw your attention to section 179 of the penal code, chapter 224, which clearly states:
"Refusing to answer a public servant authorised to question
179. Whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant, in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $3,000, or with both."
Hence, a person is bound by law to answer, and state the truth, to a question by any Public Servant.
Your comment about the presumption of guilt for an accused person is wrong. If a person is charged in Court for any Offence, the burden of proof will lie on the prosecution to prove that the person charged is guilty. In the event that there is insufficient proof, then the person so charged will be acquited. I draw your attention to section 103 of the Evidence Act, chapter 97:
"Burden of proof
103. —(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations
- (a) A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed.
A must prove that B has committed the crime.
- (b) A desires a court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B by reason of facts which he asserts and which Bdenies to be true.
- A must prove the existence of those facts."
- In Singaporean context, 'A' is always the Prosecution.
- Because proceedings whereby an accused person is charged in court are always initiated by the Prosecution, the onus will then always lie on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Should any lingering doubt remain, then the accused person will not be found guilty. I will draw your attention to section 189 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, chapter 68, which states:
- "Procedure after conclusion of case for prosecution.
189. —(1) When the case for the prosecution is concluded the court, if it finds that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, shall record an order of acquittal or, if it does not so find, shall call on the accused to enter on his defence."
In summary:
- the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that the presumption of "innocent till proven guilty" applies even in Singapore
- there is no "right to remain silent" here in Singapore; clearly you have been too influenced by too much of cop movies
- there is nothing against lawyers being present with their clients during the recording of statements or whatever.
Hope this helps.
-
Hi, Tiggerific. That is a really detailed explaination that you have given. Are you from the SPF? I have some queries on criminal proceedings, maybe you or anyone here can help?
Say for example a certain law is amended and the punishment have changed. The police is going to charged the accused based on the time he commit the crime and use the older law? Or charged him with the latest amended law?
-
Originally posted by slashy98:
Hi, Tiggerific. That is a really detailed explaination that you have given. Are you from the SPF? I have some queries on criminal proceedings, maybe you or anyone here can help?
Say for example a certain law is amended and the punishment have changed. The police is going to charged the accused based on the time he commit the crime and use the older law? Or charged him with the latest amended law?
this one no need tigerrific.... i can answer you.. =)
When the law amended is not important, when the crime is committed matters.....
hope you got the answer.....
-
If you choose to remain silent, the judge will interpret your silence in a guilty way.
Silence is not always golden.
-
Inferences from accused’s silence
261. —(1) Where in any criminal proceeding evidence is given that the accused on being charged with an offence, or informed by a police officer or any other person charged with the duty of investigating offences that he may be prosecuted for an offence, failed to mention any fact which he subsequently relies on in his defence, being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time he could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, the court may in determining —
(a) whether to commit the accused for trial;
(b) whether there is a case to answer; and
(c) whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged,
draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper; and the failure may, on the basis of those inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the failure is material.
(2) Subsection (1) does not —
(a) prejudice the admissibility in criminal proceedings of evidence of the silence or other reaction of the accused in the face of anything said in his presence relating to the conduct for which he is charged, in so far as evidence of this would be admissible apart from that subsection; or
(b) preclude the drawing of any inference from any such silence or other reaction of the accused which could be drawn apart from that subsection. -
Originally posted by qazplm:
this one no need tigerrific.... i can answer you.. =)
When the law amended is not important, when the crime is committed matters.....
hope you got the answer.....
Thanks for the enlightment, qazplm. Here's a scenerio:
Take for example, I committed a theft on July 2010 and at that point of time, the punishment for theft is imprisonment for up to 3 year. I was then allow on station bail.
After 1 year later, the IO tells me that the case has been concluded and he decides to charge me. The Penal Code at this point has already been amended and the punishment for theft is imprisonment up to 5 yrs.
So the IO will still have to charge me based on the old law, right?