CRIMINAL LAWS (Review)

Column: 1649

CRIMINAL LAWS:

(Review): The following Question stood in the name of Mr Sin Boon Ann -

2. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law whether the Government will consider reviewing its criminal laws with a view towards differentiating between people of normal intelligence and people of low intelligence for the purposes of sentencing after a criminal conviction.

Dr Warren Lee (Sembawang): Question No. 2, Sir.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first reiterate that under our laws no one will be criminally culpable for his actions if his mental capacity is so limited that he did not understand the nature of the act, or what he was doing was wrong. This is an important principle under our legal system. Therefore, those who are charged for an offence are those who knew the nature of their actions and who could appreciate that it was wrong to do what they did.

Where appropriate, accused persons with low intelligence, before being charged and before trial, go through a psychological assessment during the investigation stage. Investigating officers

Column: 1650

are mindful of their special needs, for example, in interviewing them. When investigations are completed, the Public Prosecutor will carefully consider the relevant facts before proceeding. The mental capacities of those with low intelligence are therefore considered well before the trial.

After the trial has ended and if there is a conviction, when it comes to sentencing, the Judge will consider all relevant factors in deciding on the appropriate sentence. The extent to which the factor of low intelligence will be taken into account will vary according to the circumstances of the individual case. As the Member knows, there are many relevant considerations which the Court will have to consider to be relevant in deciding the appropriate sentence in each case. For example, if an offender repeatedly commits an offence knowing full well that what he did is wrong and knowing the gravity of his conduct, the Judge may well decide that it is appropriate to give a deterrent sentence and may not give great weight to the mitigation argument based on the factor of low intelligence.

It is neither desirable nor practical to amend our laws to provide, for example, different scales of punishments for different levels of IQ scores, with low sentences for offenders with low intelligence and severe sentences for brilliant or smart offenders.

Ultimately, what constitutes the most appropriate sentence must depend on the facts of each case. In my view, Sir, it is best to leave that decision to the Judge instead of trying to legislate for the various combination of extenuating circumstances which may be applicable in different cases.

Dr Warren Lee (Sembawang): Sir, would it be possible, even before the person who is charged goes to court, for consideration

Column: 1651

to be made at the pre-prosecution stage? The Minister mentioned that this happens during investigations. But is there any sort of guideline or reassurance, for example, that a person who is acknowledged by the community to be of low intelligence and who has gone to a special school all his life may not be charged or have the defence of diminished responsibility without having to go through the court process?

Prof. Jayakumar: I think if the Member had listened to my answer, I did say that during the investigation stage and during the stage when the prosecutorial decision is made whether to charge or not to charge and, if to charge, what kind of offence to charge, these factors are taken into account. But I would not go so far to say that there is a blanket rule that in X situation, a person can expect, as a right or as an entitlement, that he will not be charged. I think all this must depend on a careful consideration of the facts of the case, the facts pertaining to that particular individual and probably taking into account the views of doctors or people trained in a particular area.

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Sir, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister can tell us whether or not there is at present a code or protocol which investigation officers can follow at investigation stage so as to enable them to be alert of the presence of low intelligence persons who are being suspected of criminal offences and how to deal with them and, if there is no such code or protocol, whether the Ministry is thinking of formulating such a code.

Prof. Jayakumar: There is no code as such because when an offence is reported and has to be investigated and the authorities have identified the accused as the offender, then, as the Member knows, a set of procedures comes into play which involves the Police. The Police would have to investigate the facts of the case and

Column: 1652

also the facts pertaining to the individual will have to be taken into account. If it appears from the investigation that there are certain factors which are relevant, including the person's state of mind, these will be brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor when the investigation papers go out. I would say that a whole myriad of factors come into play concerning the individual. If the issue of mental disability comes into play, then we must realise that mental disability has a wide range from mild to severe. And what the investigation officers and the prosecutors would have to bear in mind is whether the person knew what he was doing was wrong. That is the established principle in our jurisprudence. If the person did not know the nature of the act and what he was doing was wrong, then, of course, that would be a defence for the action.

As to whether there is a fixed code, I do not think there is a rigid fixed code. Let me say that I know that the Attorney General is constantly reviewing the procedures and, in this particular kind of situation, I know that the Attorney General, as part of his normal review of investigative procedures, in consultation with the Police, will be reviewing to see whether there is any room for improvement.

Mr Speaker: Prof. Chin, a short one, please.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, I believe that the question is relating to sentencing, not investigation. And the question is whether our principle of punishment would sanction the prospect of punishing people with lower intelligence and lower sentence because, presumably, lower culpability. So it assumes that the liability is established, meaning the person is guilty, would our legal system have a sentencing practice at this time that would acknowledge lesser or lower

Column: 1653

sentences for those with lower intelligence? I think that is the point that was raised.

Prof. Jayakumar: No, Sir. The question, if you read it carefully, was whether we will amend our laws to specifically provide for sentencing to take into account low intelligence, and my answer was that rather than legislating for the myriad of factors that come into play, this is best left to the courts.