POLICE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES (Improvements)

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in the light of the remarks by the trial judge in Criminal Case No. 90 of 1993 in regard to police investigation procedures, if he will say what steps, if any, have been taken to improve the procedures.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon is referring to Somporn Chinphakdee who was charged with the murder of his Thai room mate. The Member wants to know what steps, if any, have been taken to improve Police investigation procedures in the light of the trial judge's remarks.

For the benefit of the House, let me restate the main facts of the case. Somporn was charged with the murder of a fellow Thai worker in March 1993. During Police investigation, he complained to the doctor who examined him that he was assaulted by the Police on his chest and right foot. This allegation was immediately referred by CID to the Police Internal Investigation Section (IIS). The IIS investigation was completed before the murder trial. At the trial, Somporn further alleged that a police officer had assaulted him by inserting a needle into his left upper arm.

The Police's internal investigation found no evidence to support Somporn's complaint that he was assaulted on the chest and foot. However, at the murder trial, the manner of the IIS investigation was criticised by defence counsel. The trial judge in his judgment agreed that there were merits in the criticism by defence counsel. Somporn was subsequently acquitted of the murder charge without his defence being called.

The Police took the trial judge's remarks very seriously. They have examined the present guidelines and procedures used in Police investigations, including investigations by the IIS, and found no flaws or inadequacies in them.

During Somporn's trial, the defence counsel pointed out that the IIS investigator should have used a more qualified interpreter when he interviewed Somporn. Here we must understand how interpretation is carried out. If statements are recorded from accused persons, certificated interpreters are used. In this case, Somporn was the complainant, not the accused person. Therefore, the IIS investigator used a non-certificated, but nevertheless, proficient interpreter.

The defence counsel also pointed out that the IIS investigator should have interviewed the doctor who examined Somporn so as to satisfy himself of the truth of Somporn's allegation. The doctor's report, which was subsequently tendered as evidence during the trial, reported a minor injury on Somporn's chest and another minor injury on his right foot. The IIS investigator considered this to be inconsistent with Somporn's allegation of repeated assault and Somporn's description of the nature of the assault. He was also influenced by Somporn's own admission that the injuries on his chest and foot could also have been sustained at the construction worksite where he worked illegally. On this basis, the investigator decided that there was no need to interview the doctor. With the benefit of hindsight, Police is of the view that the IIS investigator should nevertheless have interviewed the doctor to conclusively verify his investigative findings.

Sir, on defence counsel's criticism that no ID parade was conducted, Police's practice is that an ID parade is not necessary if the investigating officer is satisfied that an accused has been accurately identified. In this case, Somporn had already precisely identified and named certain police officers as his targets of complaint. There was therefore no need for any ID parade.

Sir, these are the facts. I should add that it is not uncommon for accused persons to cast aspersions on the conduct of police officers who conduct investigations by alleging assault as a means to discredit the prosecution's case. This is precisely what happens in Somporn's case. His lawyer used his complaints to full advantage and the court gave Somporn the benefit of the doubt. Somporn's allegation that a needle was inserted into his left upper arm was subsequently found to be a lie. He was charged for fabricating evidence about the needle during his murder trial. He pleased guilty and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

Sir, the truth of the matter is that this case has been blown out of proportion. It is not the first time an accused person has alleged police assault in order to impugn his own confessional statement. And I am sure it won't be the last time.

The difference, however, in this case, is that for the first time, an accused person has alleged that Police inserted needles into him. But, this allegation has been convincingly debunked. If the accused could lie about the needles, might he not have also lied about his other allegations of police assault?

Sir, let me reiterate what I said in this House last year: that my Ministry treats all allegations of abuse of powers seriously. All complaints will be thoroughly investigated and any officer found to have abused his powers will be taken to task. We should look at complaints in the right perspective. The number of accused persons who complained of abuse of powers is insignificant compared to the number of accused persons arrested each year. For instance, in 1993, IIS investigated 94 complaints of police abuse on suspects. It represents only 0.5% of the 18,000 to 19,000 suspects arrested. Of these, only 16 cases were substantiated. The errant officers were dealt with departmentally or even prosecuted in court. There will always be complaints. We cannot avoid them. The important thing is how we deal with them.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary was asked last year in this House whether or not the Ministry would consider introducing some sort of independent element in its internal investigation, in order to boost public faith in the system. Would the Ministry reconsider the suggestion made in this House that there should be some independent input into the internal investigation?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this question was raised last year. We gave a reply. The position remains the same. IIS is independent of the Divisions, or CID, which they are investigating. It comes ultimately under the Police Commissioner who is the Commander-in-chief. And as the Commander-in-chief of a uniform service, he takes command of his men. He must have overall charge. So the position still remains that if we trust the Commissioner of Police, as we must, and I think the track record of the Police speaks for itself, then it is better, all things considered, to have IIS remained as it is.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, could I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that we talked about the appearance of bruises and to have an examination 24 to 48 hours after the interrogation, and the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into it. Could I please ask what has been done about that?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also asked Police to consider the suggestion made by Dr Soin. Police has done so and their considered view is that it is better to keep things as they are. If we examine the accused person later, I think other problems may arise. For example, who is to say that the injury, if any, might not have been inflicted by the accused himself, ie, self-inflicted after the investigation? Or for that matter, if there is a time lapse between the time of investigation and the time of medical examination, some people may argue that this time lapse would have allowed Police to threaten, to persuade, to cajole the accused person not to complain. So I think it is better to leave the position as it is. But, having said this, if the doctor finds that there is a need to re-examine the accused person, say, after one or two days, this will be done.