POLICE PERSONNEL (Conditions to open fire)

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the basic conditions that must exist before Police personnel can open fire aimed to kill a member of the public.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first say that no police officer in doing his job will want to kill anybody. It is not his job to kill. His job is to ensure that life is not endangered. Not just his own life, but also those of members of the public.

Police officers may use firearms when there is an immediate threat to life or of grievous hurt. Such a situation exists when:

First, the suspect has the means to inflict grievous bodily harm on the officer or any member of the public;

Second, the suspect makes threatening gestures or moves at the victim or police officer, which suggest that he will use violence and has every opportunity to inflict harm; and

Third, the victim or police officer is clearly in imminent danger of death or grievous hurt.

Police officers are trained to use firearms only as a last resort. And they only do so when the above conditions - which are very strict conditions - are present.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister of State whether he has made a close study of sections 100 and 101 of the Penal Code and the exception to section 300 of the Penal Code, exception (c), before I ask further questions?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: These are exceptions to committing a murder, are they not? Can you read them out? I do not have the Penal Code with me.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Have you made a study of all those sections?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: In determining the position to take, we work within the laws. So definitely, these conditions are within the framework of the law. It must be so.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister of State: is he aware that under exception (c) to section 300, the murder is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder? It does not result in an acquittal or justification for the killing. Is he aware of that?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Surely it is up to the coroner or the court to decide on a particular case whether any legal provision kicks in. In this case, the coroner, with all the facts on hand, had looked into the case and decided that the officer had acted reasonably. There was imminent danger and, therefore, the coroner decided that what had happened was justifiable homicide.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is the Minister of State aware that the finding of the coroner was not that the policeman was in imminent danger of being killed but there was imminent danger that he feared for his safety? Will the Minister of State look up the coroner's findings again?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the coroner held that his safety was immediately threatened which encompasses his life because when his safety was threatened, in those circumstances, with the man charging at him with a 1.62-metre iron rod, nobody knows what would happen. The coroner also held that he had no reasonable alternative to shooting the deceased. And he also held that Sergeant Chan in this case had acted reasonably and professionally.

Mr Simon Tay: May I ask whether it is a point of order. If we are discussing a particular case, surely that is a finding of the court in question. Is there not something in the Standing Orders on this point, Sir?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr Jeyaretnam, do you have any more questions?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have, Sir. Does the Minister of State not think that in spite of the coroner's findings, the policeman should have been charged in court for him to persuade the court that it was not murder but manslaughter, culpable homicide not amounting to murder? Because if you look at sections 100 and 101, the right of private defence does not extend to killing another man unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect that his life is in imminent danger.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have said just now in my answer, it is not the police's intention to kill. In those circumstances, he has to shoot to stop the man. If the bullets kill him, that is the result of the action. But in those split seconds, he has to act. He has to act reasonably, not only in defence of himself, but also passers-by and members of the public.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Were there passers-by?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes. There was a driver of a motor lorry behind him who testified that he feared for his life if the man was not stopped. Mr Jeyaretnam well knows that a coroner's enquiry is part of the traditional process. It is a coroner's court, well established, and the system has worked well. In fact, the coroner will not have the last say because it is the Attorney-General's Chambers who will ultimately decide whether or not there are grounds for prosecution. In this case, he decided that, based on the coroner's inquiry and also his own assessment of the facts, there were no grounds for prosecuting the police officer.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether he has the number of fatal shootings done by the police in the last year or whatever timeframe? And if so, how many prosecutions have resulted?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Over the last 15 years, there have been only 10 cases of fatal shootings, and all the cases went before a coroner's inquiry. Every one of them was justifiable homicide, except for one case which was an open verdict.