PHYSICAL INJURIES SUFFERED BY EDUCATIONALLY SUBNORMAL BOY WHILST IN POLICE CUSTODY (Commission of Inquiry)

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs how a 13 year-old educationally subnormal boy who was arrested by officers from the Ang Mo Kio Division/Chong Boon Neighbourhood Police Post on 24th February 1993 suffered physical injuries whilst in the custody of the police for more than 7 hours and whether he will consider appointing a commission of inquiry to inquire into the circumstances.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Question No. 3, Sir. I wish to declare that I have no interest in the case. But my Secretary-General was the counsel for the boy.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, first, let me apprise the House of the facts of the case. On 24th February 1993, at 2.55 pm, the 13 year-old educationally subnormal boy in question was detained by officers from the Chong Boon NPP on suspicion of bicycle theft. While the boy was under Police custody, Police made repeated attempts to contact his family but was not successful. Police only managed to get in touch with the boy's father at about 7.50 pm. The boy was released unconditionally at about 10.10 pm after his father came down to the Police station at 9.45 pm.

Sir, on 16th April 1996, Sgt Ong Peng Sim from the Ang Mo Kio Police Division appeared in court to answer to a private summons arising from a complaint made by the boy's father to a Magistrate, for allegedly assaulting the boy on 24th February 1993 while the boy was under Police custody.

The allegation of assault was initially made by the boy's father on 2nd March 1993, one week after the boy was released. On receiving the complaint, the Internal Investigation Division (IID) of the Police commenced investigation. The investigation was delayed by the fact that the boy and his father were uncooperative and repeatedly refused to be interviewed by the IID. It was only in August 1995, about two and a half years later, that the boy gave his statement to the Police. The boy's father refused to be interviewed by IID.

IID's investigations revealed that the boy's father had brought the boy to the Ang Mo Kio Polyclinic at about 9.15 am on 25th February 1993, the day after the alleged assault, for a medical examination. The boy was then examined by a resident doctor of the polyclinic who found no signs of any physical injury. About six hours later, the boy was again taken by the father to a private clinic for a second examination. This second examination revealed injuries on the boy.

On 30th March 1995, the boy's father laid a complaint of assault before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate directed the Police to investigate and submit a report. In its report to the Magistrate dated 4th October 1995, IID concluded that the allegation of assault by the Police could not be substantiated. The main basis for this conclusion was the fact that the earlier medical examination did not reveal any injuries at all.

There is therefore no cause to believe that there was any assault on the boy while he was in Police custody, as the first medical report clearly showed the absence of any physical injuries on the boy the morning after he was released from Police custody.

Nevertheless, the boy, through his counsel, applied to proceed with the private summons and the case went to trial in April 1996. At the commencement of the hearing in the Subordinate Court, Sgt Ong's defence counsel applied to the Magistrate to expunge IID's investigation report from the court record. The Magistrate therefore did not know of IID's findings. The contents of the IID report were not made known to Sgt Ong or his counsel as IID is an impartial independent body in this investigation. Its report contained references to the absence of injuries during the first medical examination. Although the prosecuting counsel had applied for and received (from the Ang Mo Kio polyclinic) the first medical report, he did not bring to the court's attention that this medical report was inconsistent with the evidence that he had introduced earlier.

Sir, after a six-day trial, the court acquitted the accused because it was of the view that the boy's testimony was unreliable and that the charge was not proven. The boy's counsel subsequently appealed against the acquittal of the accused on 17th September 1996. The appeal was dismissed.

In the circumstances, I do not see the need to appoint a commission of inquiry to re-open the case.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I understand from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's answer at the last sitting of Parliament that a minor would not normally be detained for more than four hours. But I understand that, in this case, the boy was detained for about seven hours. Why was it so?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I said in my earlier answer that unless there are extenuating circumstances, minors will not be detained beyond four hours. In this case, it was important to contact the father. Since he was a minor, they had to release him to somebody who was responsible for him. The Police tried repeatedly to contact the father but failed to do so until about 7.45 pm which was about five hours after he was first detained.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that in this particular case, the procedures of the Police in investigating minors were strictly followed?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this question was asked previously. Yes, the procedures were followed.