Crime Committed in Singapore by Foreigners

Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what will be the estimated date of completion of the police inquiry into the case involving three foreigners assaulting Singaporeans outside Suntec City Convention Centre in April 2010; (b) what is the standard operating procedure when a foreigner has committed or is suspected to have committed a crime; (c) how are such foreigners assessed for flight risk; (d) what measures are there to prevent such foreigners from fleeing jurisdiction before the trial; and (e) what criteria are applied in the assessment of whether extradition proceedings against such foreigners who have fled jurisdiction will be commenced.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Police are conducting an internal inquiry to establish the full facts of how the Suntec case was handled. If there were any lapses or negligence, Police will take appropriate disciplinary action against the officers involved. We expect the internal inquiry to be completed next month, that is, April 2012.

Warrants of arrest have been issued against Robert Stephen Dahlberg and Robert James Springall, the two accused persons who absconded while on bail. Police will work closely with INTERPOL and its overseas counterparts to locate the two men and bring them back to face the charges that have been laid against them.

On the broader question of how foreigners who have been suspected of or accused of violating the law are dealt with, under our laws, all accused persons are treated in the same way, regardless of whether they are Singaporeans or foreigners. As set out in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), there is a standard set of procedures for the handling of accused persons, whatever their nationality, from arrest, to investigation, to charging them in court, and to police bail.

During investigations, the CPC gives Police the powers to ask an accused person to surrender his passport as a condition of bail or personal bond. For accused persons who are assessed to be a flight risk, Police will set the bail or bond, commonly referred to as "police bail", at a higher amount. This is during an investigation. Flight risk is assessed holistically, taking into account multiple factors such as whether the accused person has roots in Singapore and the extent of these roots, the gravity of the offence, the behaviour of the accused person in the course of investigations and whether the person had attempted to abscond previously.

Once a person is charged in Court, discretion on whether to release the accused person on bail, as well as the conditions of bail, is with the Courts. This is commonly known as "court bail". In situations where the accused person is a likely flight risk, Police would flag this out and request the Courts to set bail at a higher amount. Police may also request that the passport of the accused person be impounded as a condition of bail.

The Courts would consider each case on its own merits, weighing the arguments by the defence and the prosecution and assessing the risk factors in determining the flight risk of the accused person. The Courts will make the decision on bail quantum and conditions after considering representations by all parties.

If a wanted person who has fled abroad has been located, whether extradition proceedings will be initiated against him depends on several factors, including whether we have an extradition treaty or extradition arrangement with the country that the person has fled to, and whether the offence committed by the person is an extraditable offence. Police will take all steps to obtain the return of those who have absconded, to the fullest extent legally possible.

Page: 2261

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister. As the Minister mentioned earlier, the bail depends on the ties that the accused person has with the country. For foreigners, they definitely do not have deep ties with Singapore and the likelihood of them fleeing Singapore is definitely high. So, will the Ministry consider putting in a Standard Operating Procedure or law to ensure that regardless of what the characteristics or the risk of this person is, that the passport be impounded till the Court has made a decision whether to acquit the accused or to charge the accused further? As shown in this instance, the foreigners have fled and this have led the victims left in Singapore feeling very unjust about what has happened to them.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, fundamentally, this case illustrates the challenges of ensuring that the accused persons, whether they are Singaporeans or foreigners facing trial, do not abscond. As they have not yet been convicted of a crime, the presumption of innocence limits how far we can restrict their movements. Ultimately, the discretion rests with the Court to decide whether an accused person should be allowed to leave our jurisdiction taking into account submissions by both the prosecution and the defence. The accused, as Ms Tin has pointed out, has not been convicted yet. Of course, if he has been convicted, then it is quite clearcut. But if he has not been convicted yet, then we have to balance the different requirements.