CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

4.03 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Sir, when this Bill was introduced in this House, I emphasised the fact that the proposed abolition of the jury had not been conceived impulsively but that Government had given considerable thought to this Bill and could not ignore experiences in recent trials by jury. I would not hesitate to reiterate that rather than allow justice to be thwarted, through either squeamishness or ignorance, Government is prepared whenever necessary for the well-being of the community to amend the procedural methods of administering the law.

Opponents to the Bill had asked whether we had any positive evidence that the jury system had failed. Because of these objections, this Bill was sent to Select Committee.

Many written representations were received by the Committee, of which 11 were accepted as being relevant, and these are annexed to the Report as Appendix II. Most of these representations were from advocates and solicitors and one from their Council. Oral evidence was heard from seven members of one jury and three members of another jury, who sat in two trials for murder held in the few weeks since the Second Reading of the Bill. The Deputy Registrar of the High Court also gave evidence. Six representatives of the Council of the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society were heard and given the opportunity to listen to a recorded tape of the evidence given by the jurors. They were also given the opportunity to examine these jurors.

The evidence heard by the Select Committee strengthened and confirmed Government's view that trial by jury in capital cases should be abolished altogether. In one case it appeared that the foreman of the jury had innocently delivered a mistaken verdict. Three members of the jury had voted for murder, and four for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Such a verdict would, under our law, result in a retrial. Instead, the verdict delivered was an unanimous verdict for the lesser offence. When the foreman returned home, his conscience pricked him and subsequently he informed the Deputy Registrar of the High Court about the mistake. But nothing could be done to rectify the mistake as the jury was functus officio. In the second case after an unanimous verdict for murder had been delivered, one of the jurors was very upset when the sentence of death was passed. He was under the impression that the accused would at the most be given a sentence for life.

Sir, nearly all the ten jurors said that they were reluctant to serve on juries and would have been happier had they not been called. It was apparent that a few did not have enough understanding of the English language to follow the proceedings in court.

Members of the Bar Council, after having heard the evidence and having examined some of these jurors, submitted a further note on this Bill to the Attorney-General, and I quote:

'In July of this year when the Council's original Memorandum to the Select Committee was submitted, there was no positive evidence available to the Council apart from the statistics showing the relative number of convictions and acquittals which would give any reliable information as to the precise detailed working of the Jury System as it is at present administered in Singapore. The reason for this was no doubt the longstanding tradition that what happens behind the closed doors of a Jury Room after the Jury has retired is never disclosed. It was because of this lack of evidence that the Council urged in its original Memorandum that Government should give further consideration to the issue as a whole in a wider context, and in giving their evidence to the Select Committee the representatives of the Council canvassed the possibility of a full inquiry.

Since July, the Select Committee has heard evidence including that given by 7 members from one jury and 3 from another, the substance of all of which and the actual transcript and recording of the greater part of which has been made available to the Council's representatives and through them by permission of the Chairman of the Select Committee to the remaining members of the Council, This evidence has to some extent opened the closed doors of the Jury Room. The details are contained in the record of the proceedings of the Select Committee, and it would be superfluous to set them out again in this Memorandum. Suffice it to say that if the state of affairs disclosed in the evidence is typical of Jury trials in Singapore as a whole, all members of the Council are satisfied that there is something fundamentally wrong with jury trials as they now operate and that some remedial measures must be necessary.

It is at this stage that opinions among individual members of the Council begin to differ.'

The Bar then reiterated that the majority of their members still felt that the Jury System should be retained. On the assumption that their views for the retention of the Jury would not be accepted, the Bar made further suggestions, most of which have been accepted.

In the result, in all capital cases:

(a) The accused will be tried by a Court of two Judges, one of whom shall be the presiding Judge.

(b) Both Judges must agree that the accused is guilty as charged before he can be convicted.

(c) If they cannot agree, he shall not be convicted of that offence but may be convicted of any lesser offence based on the same facts, provided, of course, both Judges again agree.

(d) Upon all questions relating to procedure and the admission or rejection of evidence in the course of a trial, the presiding Judge shall have a casting vote in the event of disagreement.

In conclusion, I would put it to the House that the case for the total abolition of the Jury has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as can be seen from the Report of the Select Committee.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.15 p.m.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the basic principles of democracy is that "justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done". While I agree that doing away with the jury system might save the court some precious time, because a jury consisting of laymen may sometimes be slow in grasping the complicated points of law, I would maintain that it is better to waste some precious time of the court than to stop the clock unjustly and perpetually for the accused. Whether our actions are considered wrong or seriously wrong depend on the yardstick used to measure them. And when a man's life is at stake for some offence that he has been charged with, such as murder, then the yardstick used to measure him should be the yardstick that he and other common people of society use to measure themselves. Whilst I hold our Judges in high respect, I maintain that trial by jury under the guidance of the judge is the least we can give to a fellow man before he is condemned to the gallows, and I am sure that it is the rule rather than the exception that the Judge agrees with the verdict of the jurymen. For every case in which the jurymen had unanimously given a wrong verdict, therefore, there must be a case where an experienced Judge could also have given a wrong verdict. In such a case, it is not so much a failure of the system as a human failure.

We are indeed fortunate that we have a panel of Judges who are strong enough to pass judgment without fear or favour. But with the best of intentions, we cannot say this for all time in the future, perhaps 20, 50 or 100 years to come. While we are sure that our Judges are not subject to any Government pressure, we cannot be sure about future Judges. The retention of the jury system is, in my opinion, the best guarantee for the present and for the future, for it is less likely that all seven jurymen can make the same wrong judgment at the same time and it is not likely that any future government could apply pressure to all the seven jurymen who are selected from all walks of life. Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect to the Minister, I cannot support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the suspension now. I will take the Chair again at 4.50 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.19p.m, until 4.50 p.m. Sitting resumed at 4.50 p.m.