CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.42 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 Second time".

The purpose of this Bill is to reform the existing procedure of committing criminal cases for trial in line with the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Act, 1967. The Bill in its draft stage was referred to the Council of the Law Society of Singapore which submitted its recommendations thereon. The Council accepted the principle of admitting written statements at preliminary inquiries, observing that this would (and I quote) "undoubtedly lighten the burden of Magistrates' Courts in committal proceedings without in any way prejudicing the interests either of the prosecution or of the defence". The Council also suggested a number of modifications to the Bill which were carefully considered and which have, in the main, been accepted.

While Members would have read a detailed account of the contents of the Bill in the Explanatory Statement, it would be helpful, I think, if I were to touch on the principal aspects of the new procedure that this legislation will introduce into our subordinate courts. 1 should first explain that preliminary inquiries in Singapore, as in England, were originally considered to be an extra safeguard for the accused. This procedure is interposed between the arrest of a suspect and his eventual trial before the High Court and has, as its main object, the examination of the evidence of the prosecution and its sufficiency in making out a prima facie case against the accused for trial before the High Court. Of necessity, therefore, it was confined solely to such cases as were cognisable only in the High Court. The current practice in Singapore has, however, made it extremely doubtful as to the usefulness of this aspect or stage of criminal proceedings. The primary purpose of these proceedings, namely, to allow lawyers to examine the adequacy of the case alleged against an accused by cross-examining witnesses for the prosecution, does not appear to have been utilised to the full. In many cases there is not even a submission made to the examining Magistrate at the close of the proceedings, the case for the defence being reserved until such time as the trial begins in the High Court. Indeed, this practice has resulted in committal proceedings or preliminary inquiries sometimes working against the interests of an accused person. Newspapers that report these proceedings often dwell only on the case for the prosecution, while nothing is recorded of the case for the defence. This could result in an accused being prejudiced at his trial.

The Bill provides for the existing procedure with regard to preliminary inquiries to be abandoned in favour of committals to the High Court without the necessity of examining witnesses for the prosecution on oath at a court hearing before an examining Magistrate. This will no longer be required of the examining Magistrate for, under the proposed procedure, he may commit an accused person to the High Court for trial if he is satisfied that all the evidence for the prosecution or the defence consists of written statements which disclose sufficient evidence to put the accused upon his trial. While, however, the Bill is an adaptation of the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Act, 1967, much of the English procedure being incorporated in the Bill, it is not exactly on all fours with the current English practice in that whereas in England "paper committals", as they are known, are optional, here they are to be compulsory. This is because much of the purpose behind the Bill would be lost if the English procedure were adhered to rigidly since it is more than likely that in almost all cases here counsel for the defence will elect to proceed under the old system of examining witnesses for the prosecution one by one, orally upon oath before the committing Magistrate, which would defeat the very object of the new legislation. Another significant difference is that under the English procedure, the Magistrate has the power to commit an accused for trial without considering the written statements of witnesses, while under our proposed procedure the Magistrate is bound to consider the contents of the written statements of witnesses to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to commit an accused for trial. This may be regarded as an important safeguard particularly where an accused is not represented by counsel at the preliminary inquiry.

Furthermore, the new system proposed in the Bill has the merit of saving the time of the court and of the parties as well as of avoiding inconvenience and expense to witnesses. On the other hand, as in England, a considerably enhanced workload will have to be borne by the Attorney-General's Chambers, since as a result of the amending Act statements will need to be examined carefully to ascertain whether they sufficiently disclose evidence admissible in court to prove the guilt of the accused. The clarification of doubtful points which must be effected before the hearing will also take up time. I take the view, which is shared by the Attorney-General, that the additional work which the new legislation will involve for his Chambers would be well worthwhile since it would be in the interests of the more efficient administration of justice and of the hundreds of witnesses who have to give evidence in our subordinate courts each year.

I must hasten to assure Members that the new procedure, as embodied in the Bill, accomplishes the same purpose as the existing procedure which is sought to be replaced. The principal difference is that in the existing procedure an oral statement of a witness is taken down by the court in the form of a deposition, that is, a statement on oath or affirmation, arid witnesses are liable to be cross-examined on that statement, while under the new procedure a copy of the written statement made by a witness and signed by him and certified by him that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief will be given to the defence or the prosecution, as the case may be, before it is tendered in evidence. After all the written statements and all other evidence in support of the prosecution have been received in evidence, the examining Magistrate will then generally follow the existing procedure of either committing the accused for trial, discharging him or dealing with the case summarily.

The Bill also contains two provisions modelled on the English Act. The first relates to restrictions on the publication of reports of preliminary inquiries in newspapers, radio and television with a view to safeguarding the interests of the accused. Certain particulars such as the name, address and occupation of the accused, the offence and decision of the court are permitted to be contained in reports. The second provision is to the effect that the accused shall not, without the court's permission, adduce evidence in support of an alibi unless he gives notice of particulars of the alibi. This is to ensure that no last-minute defence of alibi is sprung upon the prosecution.

Two fresh technical provisions relating to evidence contained in the Bill are set out in clause 4 and are explained at the end of the Explanatory Statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by making two points. First, the new procedure as contained in the Bill achieves the same object as the present parallel provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in that the accused will be made aware of the case that he has to meet; and, secondly, there have been no serious criticisms in the United Kingdom as to the operation of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, on which our Bill is largely based. Indeed, the general consensus is one of approval.

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.