CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.44 pm

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, in moving the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill earlier, the Minister for Home Affairs explained in detail to the House the need for more deterrent penalties for certain offences which have been on the increase. In line with this policy, clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill seek to further enhance the sentencing powers of the court in dealing with persistent or habitual offenders so that they may be kept in custody for longer periods.

Clause 2 empowers a court, in certain circumstances, to impose (in lieu of imprisonment) a sentence of corrective training for a period of not less than five years and not more than 14 years, or of preventive detention of not less than seven years and not more than 20 years. At present, the periods of corrective training or preventive detention which a court can impose on an offender are comparatively shorter.

As the law now stands, corrective training can only be imposed on an offender who is above the age of 18 years when he has been previously convicted of at least two offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or upwards. Clause 2 of the Bill, whilst retaining this provision, also empowers the court to impose corrective training on an offender with one previous conviction in respect of a serious offence, where he is again convicted of three or more distinct offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or upwards. However, the offender must have received a sentence of at least one month imprisonment for the previous offence. An offender who has been to prison once before ought to know the consequences of committing further offences. If he commits a series of offences subsequently, the short term of imprisonment imposed on the previous occasion has clearly failed to deter him from a life of crime. Hence the need for this amendment.

Similarly, a sentence of preventive detention can at present be imposed on an offender who is above 30 years of age when he has at least three previous convictions for offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or upwards. Clause 2 of the Bill, whilst retaining this provision, extends the powers of the court to impose a sentence of preventive detention on an offender who is convicted of three or more distinct offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or upwards and has previously been convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to imprisonment for at least one month.

The next clause of the Bill (clause 3) provides that where an offender is sentenced at one trial to imprisonment for at least three distinct offences, the sentences for at least two of such offences should run consecutively rather than concurrently. The purpose of this amendment, Sir, is to ensure that a person who has committed multiple offences will receive a longer sentence than one who commits a single offence.

I now turn to clause 4 of the Bill. This clause extends from 24 to 48 hours (exclusive of the time necessary for the journey to courts) the period a person can be detained in custody when he is arrested without a warrant by a police officer. This amendment is related to the amendment that has just been made to Article 9(4) of the Constitution by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The amendment is necessary to enable the police to investigate offences more thoroughly. The present 24-hour limit places undue constraints on police investigations. As the courts sit only during normal office hours, this means that in practice suspects who are arrested at night or outside office hours would have to be produced in court sometimes in a matter of 8 to 10 hours. By extending the limit to 48 hours the police would be in a boner position to complete their investigations and to carry out follow-up action which would include the arrest of accomplices, recovery of stolen property, searching for and seizing of material evidence, holding of identification parades and the recording of statements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the existing legislation, the police may hold a suspect arrested for any offence for a period of up to 24 hours. Before the expiry of 24 hours, the suspect must either be released or produced in court. In practice, the police are never able to take advantage of the full period of 24 hours for investigations for several reasons. As I said just now, the courts sit only during normal office hours and I have referred to the problem of cases where a suspect is arrested at night or early in the morning.

There are also a number of procedural requirements to be fulfilled before a suspect can be produced in court. For serious and registrable offences, arrangements have to be made for the fingerprints and photograph of the accused person to be taken. The necessary paper work required to bring the accused to court places further demand on the investigator's time. As a result, an investigator normally has only a few hours with the suspect before he has to decide whether to produce the suspect in court within the time limit or to release him at the expiry of the 24-hour limit either on bail or unconditionally.

Therefore, Sir, the few hours that an investigator has with a suspect is woefully inadequate for investigations to be carried out properly and thoroughly. The period just after arrest is the best time for questioning an arrested person because the shock effect of the arrest lingers on the suspect. This is the time when a suspect is likely to be cooperative, especially when he is confronted with evidence of his wrongdoing. Other follow-up actions have to be taken immediately if the case is to be successfully investigated; eg, arrest of accomplices, recovery of stolen property, search and seizure of material evidence, recording of confessions, and so on. Delays will give the opportunity for accomplices to flee, cause evidence to disappear, give time for false defences to be conjured up and make memories to be more fallible. During the few hours that an investigator now has, the pressure of the circumstances is in fact on the investigator to produce results quickly rather than on a thorough examination and on the pressure of the suspect to cooperate with the authority. For these reasons, the authority will need additional 24 hours to carry out the necessary follow-up actions without being disrupted by the need to produce the suspect in court.

Sir, there are numerous examples in other countries where a person may be detained without charge for 48 hours. I will mention the example of England because our Criminal Justice System is modelled after that country and also the example of Japan since our system of Neighbourhood Police Post has been influenced from the Japanese experience.

Sir, in England, where the power of detention is based on case law, it has been an established practice since 1980 for the police to hold a suspect without charge for up to 48 hours. Indeed, the British Government has before Parliament now a Bill which would seek power for the police to detain a person without charge for up to 96 hours. In Japan, after the initial 48 hours of detention, in fact, a further 24 hours is allowed with the consent of a Public Prosecutor. In both the countries cited, the authorities now have an uninterrupted 48-hour period with the suspect before deciding whether to charge the suspect in court.

I might also add, Sir, that the increase in the period of detention would in some cases obviate the need to charge a person in court. For instance, when there are conflicting accounts from witnesses and the suspect, the investigator now has very little time to verify or investigate into all the circumstances of the case. He has no choice but to produce the suspect in court and request for custody. With a 48-hour period for investigation, these occurrences will be minimized.

I would also add, Sir, that the need for more time for investigations before a person is charged in court will become even more evident in future with the enhanced punishment recently introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. This is because enhanced punishment might make criminals more reluctant to cooperate with the police.

The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code will contribute significantly to the control of crime and just punishment of the offenders.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to repeat what I said when I spoke on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill about the undesirability of taking away the discretion of the court. But may I ask the Minister by way of clarification why is it considered necessary, where it is proposed that persons under 18 should be sent for corrective training, that there should be a minimum period of five years? I should have thought the object would have been better served if the court merely ordered corrective training, and the duration of the time spent in the reformatory centre, or wherever it is that he gets his corrective training, is determined by a board who can review the progress of the boy and then, if he is sufficiently reformed and he has acquired some skill, to release him, if necessary, on parole. That would be in accordance with the trend now in other countries, that the discretion should now be left, especially in the case of young offenders, with those who will have the care of them in the reformative homes. I would like to ask the Minister why it is found necessary that there should be a minimum of five years in a corrective training order.

The other clause on which I would like to say something, Mr Speaker, Sir, is clause 4 - the extension of the period of detention from 24 hours to 48 hours. It was in the amendment to the Constitution and as a result of that we have got this amendment now. May I ask the Minister to take care that this does not become the rule. It should not be an excuse for the police to detain persons because they have got the power under this amendment to detain them for 48 hours. What is more important is, would the Minister direct by administrative fiat that the police inform the members of the family of the person detained that he has been so detained and for what and when they could see him?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have known instances where families have not been told of the detention and they get alarmed about the disappearance of a member of the family for hours on end and then they have to go and start making the necessary inquiries. I think it will help if the police are told that if it is necessary to detain any person for more than 24 hours, the family is informed that that person is in their custody and for what reason. Would the Minister consider that?

With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will sit down.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has raised three points. The first point relates to the provisions seeking to amend the existing provisions on corrective training and preventive detention. I think he has failed, while looking at the Bill, to look at the existing provisions. If he looks at the existing provisions, he will find that the approach is to provide a minimum and - no provision is given in the existing law which has been in operation for some time for the decision to be made by a Board. The existing provisions provide for less than a certain number of years - not less than three years and not more than seven years in the case of corrective training; and not less than five and not more than 14 years in the case of preventive detention. So the approach taken is similar. What we have decided is, after examination of the crime pattern which has been spelt out in detail by the Minister for Home Affairs, to raise the minimum period. That is all that has been done. We have not changed the basic approach and philosophy.

On the second point, he has asked whether the extension of 24 hours to 48 hours will become the rule. Sir, it must have struck the minds of hon. Members that it costs the Government money to incarcerate prisoners for longer than is necessary. They have to be housed. They have to be fed. Meals have to be given to them. There is no reason why the police, where they can charge a person after investigation within 24 hours, will not do so. I have already explained in my Second Reading speech just now that this is to give additional powers in cases where the 24 hours is not found adequate. This is the maximum period. The present law in the Constitution and in the Criminal Procedure Code places a 24-hour limit. That is a constraint and this constraint will be removed. If the police, in any particular case, are able to conclude the necessary investigations and follow-up and are able to charge a person within 24 hours, they will, of course, do so.

Finally, he has asked me to consider whether the Police will inform the family. Of course, the police will inform the family. But each case will depend on its merits. In cases where the police may want to conclude investigations, they have to make sure that accomplices do not flee before they can be arrested. The police must have made the judgment as to whether it would be furthering the public interest in police investigations and to decide the precise moment when the family can be informed. They may feel that informing the family prematurely may lead to the fleeing of witnesses, intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence and so on.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

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

Mr Speaker: I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 pm until 5.35 pm. Sitting resumed at 5.35 pm