CONFESSIONS MADE BY ACCUSED PERSONS TO POLICE (Rejections by courts)

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will inform the House on how many occasions in 1993, 1994 and 1995 (up to the latest convenient date) courts in Singapore have rejected confessions made by accused persons to the police.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, from 1993 to April 1995, 166 criminal cases investigated by the police were tried in the High Court. From available police records, confession evidence was ruled inadmissible in four cases. In three of these cases, the accused persons were acquitted. In the fourth case, the accused person was convicted on the basis of other evidence. As for Subordinate Court cases, 39,804 and 41,203 criminal cases were disposed of by the Subordinate Courts in 1993 and 1994 respectively. The number of cases where statements from accused were ruled inadmissible is not readily available.

Sir, the trend in the cases tried in the High Court illustrates that the number of confessions ruled inadmissible by the courts is small. Nevertheless, the fact that the courts do reject confession evidence shows that it is an important check against inadmissible evidence.

Sir, let me assure this House that there are sufficient legal safeguards to firmly check any abuse in the police investigation. The law ensures that only properly obtained confession evidence is admitted as evidence of guilt. Under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, a confession which appears to have been obtained through any form of threat, inducement or promise is not admissible as evidence in court. The law places on the prosecution the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was made voluntarily. This is a heavy burden of proof.

In addition, police carefully monitor all cases where confession evidence is ruled inadmissible. They will not hesitate to deal firmly with any officer who has run foul of proper practices and procedures or has resorted to assaults to obtain such evidence.

Sir, having addressed the immediate concerns raised by Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, let me caution that it is common for the defence to raise doubts on the credibility of the prosecution's case by casting aspersion on the manner in which such inculpatory evidence was obtained. Besides ruling inadmissible confession evidence which appears to have been obtained through any inducement, threat or promise made to the accused person, statements containing confession evidence will be ruled inadmissible if, for example, the court is satisfied that the requisite warning for caution which precedes the statement by an accused person has been inadequately explained or interpreted to him or if there were some other kind of irregularity in the recording of the confession or substantial non-compliance with any statutory requirements which will make it unsafe to admit it.

Therefore, confession evidence can be rejected by the court for a variety of reasons. We cannot presume that every rejected confession implies an intentional abuse or malpractice by the investigator.