CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.11 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The amendments, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Criminal Procedure Code proposed by this Bill may conveniently be dealt with under four heads.

Firstly, this Bill seeks to increase the jurisdiction and powers of the Criminal District and Magistrate's Courts. It will enable a Criminal District Court to deal with all offences which are punishable with a fine only or with a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and also with certain offences punishable with a heavier Sentence which are made punishable by a Criminal District Court in Schedule A to the Code, and also power is given to a Criminal District Court with the consent of the Public Prosecutor and the accused to deal with all cases other than those punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The powers of the Criminal District Court are increased to enable it to impose imprisonment not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to pass a sentence of caning up to 12 strokes, and to impose sentences of corrective training and preventive detention. In appropriate cases, as when an accused person has previous convictions, the Criminal District Court may pass sentences of imprisonment up to seven years.

Similarly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court has been increased to enable it to deal with all offences which are punishable with a fine only or with a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years. The Magistrate's Court is also given power to impose sentences of imprisonment not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding $2,000 and caning up to six strokes, and in appropriate cases, as when an accused person has previous convictions, it can award the full punishment for an offence triable by it.

These provisions generally follow the provisions of the Federation Criminal Procedure Code and the Courts Ordinance relating to the powers of the Sessions Court and the Magistrate's Court. It is further considered, Mr Speaker, that these provisions will enable a large number of cases, which are at present tried in the High Court, to be tried in the Criminal District Court, and they will result not only in a saving of time of the High Court, but also, by reason of the fact that it will not be necessary to hold preliminary inquiries, it will result in the saving of time of the Magistrate's Court.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to make admissible caution statements to the Police. The Police in Singapore have complained for a long time that the results of their work are restricted by the provisions which forbid statements recorded by them, even if taken in compliance with the Judges' Rules in England, which provide safeguards against statements extorted by force or threats, to be given in evidence in the Court.

In Hongkong and Sarawak, the English practice in this respect is followed, and although in the earlier stages the Police investigators there made the mistake of relying on obtaining a confession to prove a case, the practice has, I am glad to say, since worked very well. The experience in Hongkong has shown that Police investigators can learn, by training and experience, the proper use of the Judges' Rules, and that the possible abuses of the admissibility of caution statements in evidence can be avoided.

The statements and confessions can be challenged in Court on the ground that they were improperly taken, and the Court can always rule out such evidence if the rules are not observed.

It is proposed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the statements made to police officers be made admissible in Court subject to the safeguards as imposed in England. The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code which will effect this is set out in clause 15 of the Bill. A consequential amendment will also have to be made in the Evidence Ordinance.

In England and Hongkong, there are no restrictions in regard to the rank of police officer to whom the statements are made, and such caution statements made to any police officer are admissible in evidence. It is proposed, however, that, as a start in Singapore, only statements to police officers not below the rank of Inspector will be admissible in evidence.

The term "Inspector" has been defined to include a cadet inspector, but the effect will be that statements made to the ordinary police constables or corporals or sergeants will not be admissible in evidence.

The Government realises that there is a risk in the admission of caution statements, and it is felt that it would be better to confine the admissibility of such statements to those made to police officers of and above the rank of Inspector who are, on the whole, better educated and, therefore, more likely to understand the principles and application of the Judges' Rules.

Hitherto in Singapore where caution statements to police officers have been made admissible in evidence as, for example, under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, only statements made to police officers of and above the rank of Inspector are made admissible. If and when it appears that the higher ranks of the Police Force have learned the proper use of the Judges' Rules, and are able to direct and guide the lower ranks of the Police, consideration will likewise then be given to removing the restriction in regard to the rank of the police officers to whom the statements are made.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is recognised that the greatest care would have to be taken to avoid encouraging an attitude of mind among police officers which tended to rely on confessions to the detriment of other available evidence in support of the prosecution. Control or supervision would remain in the hands of senior officers who are fully aware that it would be detrimental to the Force and prosecutions in Court if confessions were sought to be adduced in evidence in circumstances where the voluntary nature was in doubt. It is appreciated that there may be difficulties over language barriers; for instance, if the accused speaks only a Chinese dialect and the constable who arrests him speaks only Malay. These difficulties are not likely to disappear for many years and it will always be for the Court to decide in any individual case whether the circumstances justify the evidence to be admitted or not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the third amendment proposed by the Bill relates to trial by jury. It is proposed that following the practice in the Federation of Malaya, trial by jury be normally only required in cases where the punishment authorised by law is death. In all other cases of trial in the High Court, the trial will be by a Judge alone. This will appear to be a fundamental change in the law and Opposition Members may shed tears over the passing of the English institution of trial by jury. Even in England, Mr Speaker, Sir, the institution of trial by jury has not escaped criticism from such legal authorities as Dr Glanville Williams. In the independent State of the Federation of Malaya, a committee was appointed to consider the matter and this committee recommended the introduction of trial by jury only in capital cases.

The proposed amendments will undoubtedly speed up trials in the High Court. Although it might be said that the proposals imply a distrust of the jury system, they undoubtedly show that the Government has full confidence in the ability and competence of our Judges to deal with such matters.

Following the provisions in the Federation, power is given in the law to the Chief Justice, with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, to order that the trial of all offences or of any particular type of offences before the High Court shall be by jury. If it should therefore appear desirable in the future to extend trial by jury to other than capital cases this can be done after consultation between the Chief Justice, the Cabinet and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I should like, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this connection, to quote the following summary of the recommendations of the Law Commission of India which was set up in 1955, under the chairmanship of the Attorney-General of India. This is what the Commission has to say on the jury system in India:-

"The jury system is time consuming and expensive. It is difficult to find jurors of the right type and such jurors as are generally available are easily approachable and can be moved by extra judicial consideration. The system which has had a long trial in India has been a failure and therefore should be abolished."

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the committee stage of this Bill, I propose to introduce the insertion of two new clauses in the Bill to provide that where, in a trial by jury of a person charged with a capital offence, the jury returns a verdict of not guilty and the accused is discharged, the Judge may convict the accused of a minor offence or some other offence if he is satisfied from the facts that the accused is guilty of such offence. This amendment will have the effect of confining the jury's verdict only to the capital charge for which the accused is tried.

Fourthly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill makes a number of minor amendments to improve the system of criminal procedure. Provision is made for the service of summonses to witnesses issued in the Federation. Power is given to the Court, in sentencing an accused person, to take account of outstanding offences against him. The power authorising police officers to conduct investigations is extended to enable suitable officers even below the rank of corporal to be so empowered. The word "caning" is substituted for the word "whipping". The offence of cheating is made a seizable offence, and the offences of causing grievous hurt, voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon, and voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon are made non-compoundable. A police officer conducting an investigation into a seizable case is empowered to search the house of an arrested person, and power is also given to a police officer not below the rank of inspector to search a house where he suspects the person is being confined.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.21 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to alter a number of things which have long been established as part and parcel of our system of criminal justice.

Sir, on the first point mentioned by the Hon. Minister for Labour and Law, that the Bill seeks to give wider powers to the District Court and the Police Court, I have nothing to say, except that where the District Courts and the Police Courts are given powers which are now exercisable by the High Court, it follows that the District Courts and the Police Courts should be strengthened. There seems to be a tendency in the District Courts and the lower courts for a weakening rather than a strengthening of these Courts. In the context of what is happening in the lower courts at South Bridge Road, I view with some alarm the giving of extended and extensive powers to the lower courts. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, everything being equal, I would myself say that taking away some of the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court and passing it over to the lower courts (that is, the District Court and Police Court) is a good thing in itself.

The other important point which the Bill deals with is trial by jury. The Minister for Law has cited Mr Glanville Williams as a person who disagrees with the jury system. He is no doubt an eminent lecturer and, like all lecturers and theorists, he has his ideas and views of what the criminal law should be and how it should develop. But, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, Sir, the consensus of opinion among practising barristers in the United Kingdom is that trial by jury is a system which should not be scoffed at and disposed of lightly, as it is intended to do here this afternoon. The system of trial by jury has been in force in Singapore since criminal law was enforced under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Our code, Mr Speaker, is derived from the Indian Code and, although the Indian Code did not permit a number of things which we have followed, it instituted the system of trial by jury in the High Court. The quotation by the Hon. Minister for Labour and Law of a statement by the chairman of the 1955 Commission, or Committee, investigating the criminal law in India may perhaps be true in the light of events that have taken place in India. It could well be that the jurors are easily accessible there and possibly it is a matter of public knowledge that jurors are easily accessible. Possibly in India, the system of trial by jury is held in public contempt. And when a system of criminal law is held in public contempt then, of course, it must be changed because, in order to uphold the rule of law, it is vital that the processes whereby the rule of law is upheld should be held high in the esteem of the public. It could well be that in India trial by jury is discredited. But Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I have not heard it said in Singapore that the system of trial by jury is disadvantageous to the public. There has been no suggestion that our jurors here could be tampered with or could be reached. Sometimes it is said that the jury has brought in a wrong verdict. But that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a matter of opinion. Whether they, the jury, have brought in a wrong verdict or not is a matter of opinion. Crown counsel invariably thinks that the wrong verdict has been brought in when an acquittal is awarded by the jury. And, similarly, counsel for the accused usually thinks that a wrong verdict has been brought in when his client has been found guilty. But those are matters of opinion.

Trial by jury, Mr Speaker, Sir, has this advantage, that it distributes the responsibility for conviction on a number of persons. The prosecutor presents his case as best he can objectively. The defence counsel defends his client as permitted to him by the ethics of his profession and according to law. The judge merely sums up the facts as have been adduced before him. The jury takes the responsibility for convicting on the facts placed before them. The responsibility for conviction is equally distributed between three or four separate groups of persons. It has been a system which has not been found lacking. As far as I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been no complaint that the system of criminal law in Singapore is failing merely because trial by jury is being employed. Where a system has been found to be effective and working within reason, then one should not change that system for the sake of merely changing it. One must have adequate reasons for changing it either in the light of developments or of conditions that exist in Singapore itself.

Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, the last point on which I wish to touch is this complete departure from our conception of the admission of evidence in our Courts. It is not without reason that the Indian Criminal Procedure Code says that any statement made by any person who subsequently becomes an accused person, particularly if that statement is made to a police officer, should be inadmissible. Now the Indian Criminal Procedure Code was drawn up by eminent jurists from England and they devised a system of law which was suitable to the needs of the country having regard to the ability of that country to work that particular system of law.

Now, in a multi-racial society such as we have in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is an unwise step to change the existing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which disentitle the police to allow statements of accused persons to be put in evidence against the accused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, police investigations do not solve all crimes brought to the notice of the police. The majority of cases in Singapore are solved through information given to the police by outsiders whose names are not revealed or brought out in court, or through work done by detectives at the lower levels. It is public knowledge, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these detectives are recruited on the basis of `Set a thief to catch a thief.' That is public knowledge. They do not exactly come from the law-abiding classes. Most of the detectives have been recruited from groups of persons who themselves have once indulged in criminal activities or have been in very close contact with those who have indulged or are indulging in such activities. It is through these two means that crime in Singapore is mostly solved. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in the circumstances here it would be highly unwise to bring in an amendment of this nature.

The section as drafted is very wide and gives powers to the police to bring in any statement brought to the knowledge of a police officer, whether that statement has been interpreted to him by any police officer or any person concerned or not in the arrest. Now it is a fundamental principle of the law as we now know it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in any translation which seeks to lay the blame on the accused, the translator should not be a person who should be interested in the arrest or in the furnishing of information which brings about the arrest. That is a fundamental principle of the law recognised by the courts of law here. Now, that is sound common sense, Mr Speaker, Sir, because where everything depends upon the interpretation then if a person is interested in the arrest of a culprit it is not improbable that the interpretation might be slightly tinged in favour of bringing about a conviction against the accused person. I do not say that it will happen in all cases but the risk, Mr Speaker, is so great that it would be highly unwise - nay, dangerous - to bring about this amendment at the present stage. I dare say in Hongkong it is possible because in Hongkong everybody speaks Cantonese. The population speak Cantonese, the police speak Cantonese from the lowest to the top whereas in Singapore the composition of the population is such that some speak Cantonese, others speak Hokkien, others speak Teochew, some speak Tamil, some speak Malayalam, some speak Mandarin, some speak Malay, and so on. And it would be highly dangerous in a society which uses several languages to let in as evidence this statement where the police inspector himself would not be the person who hears the statement direct and comprehends it direct from the person making the statement; but the police inspector would have to comprehend it through an interpreter who, the section says, could be a person interested in the arrest of that person. A very dangerous situation indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir!

I am fully aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the police have for a number of years - this is not the first time that the police have made representations; they have made representations for the last 20 to 30 years - to bring about such an amendment because if this amendment is brought about it will be easier for them to secure convictions. It is well known, Mr Speaker, that when the prosecution presents a case in the court and when a confession is sought to be put in evidence, in 99 cases out of 100, you will find that the confession is the only evidence that links the accused to the crime with which he is charged. It could not be a coincidence that in 99 cases out of 100, in cases where confessions are produced, there is no other link of evidence connecting the accused to the crime. This amendment, Mr Speaker, will make the position even worse than what it now is. In a confession the person confessing has to be taken before a magistrate who, after certain questions put to the accused and satisfying himself that the statement is not only voluntary but volunteered, then records a statement from the accused. But here the statement would be made by an accused person to an inspector, either to him directly or in his hearing. It takes it even further. It need not be made to the inspector. All that need be done is that it should be made in his hearing; then a person interested in the arrest could translate it to the inspector. In these circumstances, it would appear that the statement would be admissible in evidence. Members might say, "If he is guilty, why should his statement not be put in?" Certainly, if he is guilty, he should be convicted. But the great difficulty about these matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, is to sift the truth from the untruth, and in a system of criminal justice, not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Bill is carried through, the inference might well be that justice is not seemingly being done.

4.38 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not here early enough to know whether the Member for Farrer Park prefaced his remarks by saying that he had the concurrence of the majority of the Bar in expressing the views that he did. I learned from the Minister for Labour and Law that the Bar Committee have been consulted and they have not expressed any views on the matter up to date.

The business of the administration of justice is to do justice according to the law. Where according to the law justice is being flouted and not being done, then it is the business of the legislature to see that the law is changed.

I was early enough to listen to the objections of the hon. Member to two different points. He is in favour of retaining jury trials for all criminal matters. But he is against the change in admitting evidence made by an accused person to a police officer after arrest.

In the first case, he asked, "Why change a system which nobody has found anything wrong with?" Let me state quite simply that it is common knowledge at the Bar that the law as it is - not only unfortunately in jury cases but also in other than jury cases - becomes a game at which the skill and the agility of the lawyer, plus the obstacles put by the legislature on the prosecution, should, if the lawyer is sufficiently skilful, and his client is sufficiently intelligent, enable the lawyer to get his client off. That is not the business of the administration of law. It is to do justice and to see that right is upheld and wrong is punished. Let me tell the hon. Member that there is one basic defect in jury trials in Malaya which makes it fundamentally quite different from what jury trials are supposed to be. In England from whence this concept first arose, the theory is that if you are accused by the State of having committed an act which entitles the State to punish you, you should be found guilty by your peers. If you are a noble lord, then your peers are the members of the House of Lords. If you are an ordinary commoner, then you will have 12 common jurymen sitting to hear the evidence and decide for or against your innocence. Now, unless we are to introduce multilingualism on a quite unprecedented scale, nobody is ever tried by his peers in this country. He is tried by the English-educated if you have a jury trial. If you are tried by a special jury, you are tried by an English-educated elite. And - the Member for Farrer Park knows this as well as I do - every time the box containing the list of jurors is taken out, the first question you ask the Registrar is, "Is this a special jury or a common jury?" Everybody knows that if you get a special jury, the chances of getting a conviction increases. Let us be reasonably honest about all this. A jury trial is a foreign implantation which works reasonably well, but it requires a very high degree of skill both from the Bar and the Bench. It requires also a state of affairs which can only exist in an ordered and settled state of society where everybody is prepared to come up and say, "I saw A stab B," and he feels that it is his duty to tell the world that he witnessed the scene.

Is justice being thwarted? I say `Yes', on pure technicalities. Every member of the Bar knew that a certain person in the famous Green Bus murder case took a tin of petrol, threw it into an air-conditioned room, lit it, the whole room went on fire and five persons died. The case went on trial. The jury had not the slightest doubt as to the guilt of the accused and, they convicted him unanimously. Unfortunately, in the course of his summing - up to the jury - these are all technicalities of the law - the Judge did not put to the jury the possibility that there was the chance that the accused person might have done it in self-defence. Therefore, there was an acquittal and the Government ordered a new trial on other charges - as there were five murders, therefore four other murders had still to be tried. When the accused went before a second Judge, the Judge said, "Is it not a pity that a man should be persecuted twice in this way?" And the Attorney-General, for reasons which must have weighed very heavily on his mind, but which I am unable to see could possibly have existed, withdrew the prosecution, and a man who undoubtedly, according to seven jurymen, committed murder was let off free. I say that if we continue to pay attention and respect to forms and not to the substance of the rule of law, then we shall collapse, because the law will be held in utter contempt. A law that is unable to punish the guilty, because it has got itself involved in the intricacies which our experts have not yet mastered, is a law which is unsuitable. Nobody, certainly not the two practising Members on the other side of this House, would suggest that our Judges cannot make up their minds on facts as well as the jurymen can. I do not think they will make that allegation. If they are wise, I do not think they will even mention it. I suggest let us get on with the business of seeing that justice is done.

Now, I have to defend the preservation of jury trials for murder - we are not dispensing with it in the case of murder. It is because the Federation had decided to move in that direction and have jury trials for murder. This is one of those things that have happened. We have to move closer - so we line up with their law.

Having elected to defend this, an English importation - the Member says, "Keep it, it is good." He then says, "Let us not have an English practice," namely, a policeman giving evidence. According to the practice in England, every policeman can give evidence on what the accused person has said. But the Member for Farrer Park does not want that, because that will help a conviction. So he is not interested in English practice; he assiduously avoids the whole argument. He talked about Indian practice, and how wise the Indians were in preventing their policemen from giving evidence, but how unwise they were in getting rid of the juries. Let us not have it both ways. Every person knows when an accused person's defences are down and that is at the time when he is caught in the act. Before he has had time to think out a clever defence - that his grandmother was ill on the blank day of blank, but the policeman thought he saw him there, and he produced the grandmother, grand-uncle, and two great grandchildren who said that he was at such and such an unnumbered attap hut in an unknown village. We could have gone the whole hog and said, "Let us accept the practice for the whole of the police force." But because we appreciate the difficulties in a multi-lingual society and the fact that, in some cases, as the Member for Farrer Park has alleged, in the past there was this practice of employing a thief to catch a thief, we have therefore restricted the scope of the new provisions to police inspectors and above. Nobody, let alone the two honourable and learned Members of the Bar on the other side, would suggest that the English-educated, who are good enough to be inspectors, would go into Court and perjure. This is a step in the right direction. If we are able quickly to set the police force right and get out the thieves who were employed to catch the thieves, we shall be happy to come back to this House, after these new provisions have been successfully put into operation, to report that we have a better police force, that no more thieves are employed to catch thieves, and we will ask for the extension of these provisions to the whole of the police force.

4.49 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the forensic ability displayed by my colleague and leader here, I think there is very little for me to say in reply. I would, however, like to make this point: that the Member for Farrer Park seems to be confused as to what this Bill really sets out to do. He has accepted the position that it would be reasonable and necessary to increase the jurisdiction of the Lower Courts. That being so, Mr Speaker, I suggest that less and less of criminal cases, other than capital cases, will be finding their way into the High Court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that the Government as such has expressed any adverse dislike of the jury system as is practised here. It is not the intention that the jury system be abolished in this territory. The Government is proceeding to follow, not what is the practice in India where there has been a recommendation that the jury system be abolished, but rather the practice in the Federation of Malaya where the jury system is retained for capital cases only.

We have written into this law certain safeguards. If it is found desirable to extend trial by jury to other than capital cases, there is provision in our law for this to be done. On the recommendation of the Chief Justice, and with the consent of the Government, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can so agree.

As to the question of caution statements, I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government also has been able to resist pressure from the local police who have sought to make all caution statements made to police officers to be admissible in evidence. However, we are trying to give the new system a fair trial. We are not proposing that caution statements made to all police officers should be admissible. We are restricting these caution statements only to officers of and above the rank of police inspector.

We will see how the new system works. If it works well, I have no doubt that it will be able to develop, as do other systems. If precedents elsewhere are a good guide, I have no doubt that the police here will be able to discharge their duties in as satisfactory a manner as the police in England, Hongkong, and Sarawak. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that there is cause for us to be in any way alarmed at the improvements that the Government is seeking to introduce into our system of administering the criminal law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection. -[Mr A. P. Rajah].

Mr Speaker: Is it a convenient time to suspend?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I then do suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.56 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.