CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Parliament of Singapore · 29 June 1967 · 1st Parliament

Official Report, 29 June 1967, Vol 26, Issue 1 · Open in the reader (summaries, search, filters)

4.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Mr Barker, I suggest that we take the First Reading of the' Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill immediately before the suspension for tea. That will give Members half an hour to study the Bill.

Mr Barker: Very well, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance (Chapter 131 of the Revised Edition)".

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Mr Barker: After the suspension, Sir, Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the. President in respect of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed or printed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Mr Barker: Yes.

Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker: I think this will be a convenient time to suspend the sitting. I will therefore suspend the sitting of the House and take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.58 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL (Cont.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to amend section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance to ensure that there may not be any confusion as to what the true intent and purport of that section is. Section 7, as it now stands, reads as follows:

`Where any application made to any criminal court by or on behalf of any person charged with a scheduled offence in respect of the release on bail of such person is opposed by the Public Prosecutor or a Deputy Public Prosecutor the court to which such application is made shall, unless it is the High Court, refer such application for the decision of the High Court or a Judge and, until such decision has been obtained, shall remand such person in custody.'

The need to amend this section has been brought about by a case decided in the High Court in 1955. The court then held that the words in section 7, as it now stands, are not sufficiently clear and that the Legislature could not have intended to abrogate the substantive right to bail which has to be offered where the offence is bailable as of right, and that this was so despite the fact that such an offence has been listed in the Schedule to the Ordinance. Accordingly, to remove any doubts as to the actual intent of its application and to allow the Prosecutor to remove issues relating to bail from the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts to the High Court in regard to both bailable and non-bailable offences, the amendments have been introduced.

According to this new amendment, section 7 will apply notwithstanding the provisions relating to bail that are to be found in the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, the procedure will prevail, whatever the substantive rights may be. So that whether an offence with which an accused person is charged is bailable or non-bailable, once the Public Prosecutor or the Deputy Public Prosecutor opposes an application for bail, the matter will be taken up to the High Court for its decision. Substantive rights to bail are in no way jeopardised - only the forum is changed.

I would like to emphasize that only those offences that are listed in the Schedule to the Ordinance, and these include only certain offences in the Penal Code that have been listed some years ago, would be affected. In short, it does no more than seek to amplify the wording of section 7 which the High Court in 1955 had regarded as insufficiently clear.

Mr Speaker, 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 Barker].

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

Source: Singapore Parliament Official Report (Hansard) for 29 June 1967. Republished on SGParliament.