CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.10 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin) (for the Minister for Law and National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill makes the formal amendments necessitated by the constitutional changes. Sections 306 to 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code which deal with the reservation of points of law by the subordinate Courts for the consideration of the High Court and which were deleted on Singapore becoming a part of Malaysia have been re-enacted. (Clause 43). The opportunity has also been taken to make a few amendments of substance.

There has been some doubt as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Criminal District Court as set out in sections 8 and 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 8 gives the Criminal District Court power to hear offences other than those punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if the Public Prosecutor applies to such Court to try such offence and the accused consents. Unfortunately this power, which has been found very useful, appears to be cut down by section 10 which prevents a District Court from trying any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. It is proposed to make the provision clear by making the provisions of section 8 prevail over those of section 10 of the Code. (Clause 5).

Section 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code imposes a restriction on the powers of the High Court to impose sentences where the accused is charged with several offences. This has been found undesirable in practice and it is proposed to remove this restriction. (Clause 6).

Section 121 imposes a restriction on the admission of statements by accused persons and at present the conditions have to be strictly complied with. The position in England is that the Judges' Rules are not construed restrictively but the Courts have a discretion to admit a statement even if the Rules are not formally and strictly observed, provided the Court is satisfied that the statement is a voluntary one. It is proposed to give this discretion to the Courts in Singapore under clause 21.

The reference to preliminary inquiries in the case of trials by a Judge without a jury is removed, as it has been held by the Federal Court that it is not necessary to have preliminary inquiries in such cases. Fung Yin Ching v. P.P. (1965) 1 M.L.J. 49 (Clause 26).

The restriction on the number of names of jurors to be drawn by the Registrar is removed. Where there is a large number of accused persons, as in the Pulau Senang case, it is necessary to summon more than 16 special jurors or 30 common jurors. (Clause 34).

Provision is made for the admissibility of reports by medical, scientific and other experts, without their being called to give evidence, unless the accused requires them to be called. This will prevent the present great wastage of the time of medical officers in the courts, under clause 54.

The Bill has been referred to the Singapore Bar Committee, the District Judge and First Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police, and is supported by all of them.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.