ACCUSED PERSON (Rights to legal counsel)

Column: 1654

ACCUSED PERSON:

(Rights to legal counsel): 4.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for

Column: 1655

Home Affairs (a) what rights does an accused person have to legal counsel and to be informed of the grounds of his arrest; (b) what are the built-in safeguards in police procedures and investigations to protect an accused person's constitutional rights; and (c) how legal consultation can impede police investigations.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, the rights of an accused person to legal counsel is set out in Article 9(3) of our Constitution, which states: "Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice."

Our courts, in interpreting the Constitution, have determined that this right to legal counsel is to be exercised within a reasonable time after arrest, and not immediately upon arrest. What amounts to a reasonable time would, of course, depend on the circumstances of the case. We need to strike a balance between the rights of the accused person to consult his legal counsel and the public interest in ensuring that the Police is able to effectively investigate each case.

Sir, the rights of an accused person to be informed of the grounds of his arrest are also provided for in the provision of the Constitution which I had referred to earlier. Typically, an accused person is informed of the grounds of his arrest at the scene of the arrest, unless it is not appropriate to do so, such as when the person is violent or drunk. In addition, after the person is brought back to the Police station, an officer will record his particulars and the offence that he has been arrested for in a charge book which is maintained for the purpose of keeping track of accused persons. The accused person will also be asked to sign against

Column: 1656

these records as a form of acknowledgement. This procedure ensures that an accused person knows why he has been arrested.

In addition, our Criminal Procedure Code provides for every accused person to be produced before a Magistrate without unreasonable delay and, in any event, within 48 hours of his arrest. As such, an accused person must either be charged in court within 48 hours from the time of his arrest, released on bail or released unconditionally. No accused person can be detained in Police custody longer than 48 hours without being charged, regardless of the number of reports or charges pending against him. If the Police wishes to keep an accused person in remand for more than 48 hours after arrest, it has to make out a case to the court which will then make a ruling based on the information and facts before it.

Giving the accused person immediate access to legal counsel or family members could compromise Police investigations, especially in cases where the prosecution relies primarily on the testimony of witnesses and accused persons to lead them to crime scenes, accomplices and other corroborating evidence. Permitting an accused person to communicate with third parties before the Police can wrap up their investigation may result in evidence being destroyed or accomplices being alerted.

Sir, we will continue to carefully balance the needs of the accused person and the public interest which is to enable the Police to conduct complete and thorough investigations. Every country must find the right balance that suits its circumstances. Our system is well-established and has proven to be effective over the years in helping to keep Singapore safe and secure, and our crime rates low.

Column: 1657

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, can I just ask, how does the legal counsel impede or compromise the investigation process because, in fact, when the suspect is not cooperative with the Police during the court process, the judges draw up adverse inferences from uncooperative clients, and it works against them. Would the lawyer not make it more conducive for the suspect to be cooperative and that the lawyer can better advise the client to cooperate with the Police?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Let me reiterate the principle, Sir. The Police's job is to find the reasons and to establish the facts and to know why the accused person has committed a particular crime or is alleged to have committed a particular crime, and he would have access to legal counsel when the Police has wrapped up his case. Therefore, the access to legal counsel is not denied. What we do not want is to have the accused have his counsel present the moment the Police arrests him and have him interviewed in the same room with the legal counsel. Otherwise, the Police investigation would be compromised.

The Member asked why is it not appropriate for the lawyer to be present during the Police interviews. Let me just cite a few examples. During the interview, the accused could be questioned on highly confidential or sensitive matters surrounding the alleged crime. For example, the facts, the documentary evidence, physical evidence, the witness' testimony, the locations, existence and proceeds of crime, etc. There is a need to ensure that absolute confidentiality on these matters is preserved, especially while investigations are ongoing. Otherwise, there is a risk of critical evidence being destroyed or tampered with, witnesses being intimidated or suborned and proceeds of crime being removed or dissipated. The only way to

Column: 1658

guarantee that confidential information discussed during interviews is not leaked, thus ensuring that investigations are compromised, is for the defence counsel not to be present during interviews. We also do not want interviews to be interrupted by defence counsel by unnecessary interjection and intervention. For example, the Member said that the counsel can advise in saying this or that. That is the kind of intervention or interjection that can impede an investigation. It would be very difficult for the Police to ensure that the accused persons are not coached by the defence counsel on how to answer interview questions through non-verbal forms of communication, such as hand signal, gesture, or body language, for example, frown, smile, nodding or shaking the head, wink, and so on.

Sir, defence counsel who wants to sit in during interviews must be willing to testify as a prosecution witness if the accused claims that he has been subject to promise, inducement or threat during the course of the interview.

This will place the defence counsel in a conflict of interests, and he may even have to discharge himself as defence counsel in such a situation.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: Sir, many of the accused cannot speak English, let alone read it. When they sign any statement, they might not understand what they are signing and, perhaps in this case, it could also refer to people with a mental disability. In addition, any statement recorded and signed would be interpreted by a party affiliated to the prosecuting authority. So, I would just like to ask the Minister: does he not think that access to legal counsel will help to ameliorate this weakness?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, legal counsel is not an interpreter and, therefore, cannot help to do the interpretation either. What is done during the interviews and at

Column: 1659

the time when the accused person needs to sign any statement is that there will be interpretation given to him by those who are qualified to do so or those who are able to do the interpretation, and it will be clearly explained to him what the statement is all about.