PERSONS WHO COMMITTED THEFT AND MADE FULL RESTITUTION (Circumstances for withdrawal of charges)

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the circumstances in which charges against persons who committed theft but had made full restitution will be withdrawn, and how many cases of such withdrawal were recorded since 1992.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, theft cases including shoplifting are seizable offences investigated by the Police. Upon completion of investigations, the Police will assess the evidence and the merits of the case. If there is sufficient evidence, the offender will be prosecuted in court unless there are merits in the case to withdraw the charge. In such a case, Police will seek concurrence from the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) to administer a stern caution to the offender in lieu of prosecution.

Sir, the rationale for cautioning an offender in lieu of prosecution is to allow him a second chance so that he can learn from his mistakes and change for the better. An offender may be considered for cautioning particularly if he has not been prosecuted in court or cautioned by the Police before or where there are mitigating circumstances leading to the commission of the offence such as in the case of a young offender.

Police will evaluate the case as a whole, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. Making restitution is only one of the factors that Police will consider as a possible indication of remorse. However, making restitution by itself does not mean that the charge will be withdrawn.

Sir, the Police does not have available records on the number of cases where the charge was withdrawn solely because restitution was made. Since 1995, there have been 1,123 cases of shoplifting and minor thefts where the offenders were cautioned and charges withdrawn against the offender. The majority of these cases are for shoplifting and the bulk of the offenders are minors.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I refer to the case of a British schoolboy, John David Raven, whose charge was withdrawn by the Attorney-General. I would like to know what were the merits of the case and under what circumstances was the charge withdrawn.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the case referred to by the Member is of a 18-year old British national who was charged for theft in July 1996. His counsel made representation where he expressed remorse for committing the offence and he also made full restitution to the victim. So the DPP, in accordance with normal guidelines, looked at it and handled it as a routine matter and withdrew the charge.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, what were the merits of the case? And what principles were involved in withdrawing the charge against the boy?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I said just now, the Police will look at all the circumstances of the case, particularly if the offender is a young person, like the case in question, and also the fact that he is a first offender. These were the circumstances. On top of that if restitution is made, as a factor, it is also considered in deciding whether or not to withdraw the charge.