Rights of accused compromised
under present Criminal Procedure Code
The rights of the accused being investigated for a crime was a
subject of debate in Parliament by lawyer MPs who argued for their
access to a lawyer.
Under current practices, suspects are hauled up
for investigations by the police without a counsel by their side.
They are also not aware of the fact that they have the right to
remain silent so as not to incriminate
themselves.
As such, the Singapore police has overwhelming
powers of investigations which place the onus on the accused to
prove their innocence instead of the other way
round.
MPs suggested that a time limit be set, after which a person
being investigated for a crime should be allowed to see a
lawyer.
Senior Counsel Alvin Yeo said:
“I appreciate and support the importance of allowing the
police to go about their investigations without the accused playing
‘legal games’ with them. But there must be some limit to
this.”
His views were shared by NCMP Sylvia Lim who pressed for a
statutory time limit after which the accused should be granted
access to legal counsel.
In other countries like Hong Kong, Australia and
New Zealand, lawyers are permitted to accompany the accused for
his/her statement to be taken by the police, but not in Singapore
where there is always a possibility that they may be intimidated by
the investigation officer into
self-incrimination.
In a recent case, an elderly woman was charged in court for
poisoning her husband. She later said she was intimidated by the
investigating officer into saying so in her statement which was
nevertheless still admitted as evidence in court.
Urgent reforms in the Criminal Procedure Code is needed to
prevent possible abuses of power by the Singapore police and to
safeguard the rights of the accused who should be innocent until
proven otherwise in court.
Your post is as inaccurate as it is wrong. As it stands, there
is nothing preventing counsel from being present with their clients
whenever called up for Police investigation. However, should
counsel be present, in the event that the entire case goes to
trial, it is only inevitable for the lawyer to be called up as a
prosecution witness, simply because the lawyer was there to witness
the interaction between the investigation officer and the accused
person / suspect.
the catch lies here: if the defence lawyer becomes a prosecution
witness, how can he/she then serve his client? there will, no
doubt, be a conflict of interest, and as such, the lawyer will be
unable to serve the best interests of his clients. this is why some
lawyers, even when asked to be present, choose not to be present
with their clients. it will affect their livelihood.
Your claim that there is a "right to remain silent" is also
wrong, especially in SIngaporean context. I draw your attention to
section 179 of the penal code, chapter 224, which clearly
states:
"Refusing
to answer a public servant authorised to question
179. Whoever, being legally bound to state
the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer
any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public
servant, in the exercise of the legal powers of such public
servant, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $3,000, or
with both."
Hence, a person is bound by law to answer, and state the truth,
to a question by any Public Servant.
Your comment about the presumption of guilt for an accused
person is wrong. If a person is charged in Court for any Offence,
the burden of proof will lie on the prosecution to prove that the
person charged is guilty. In the event that there is insufficient
proof, then the person so charged will be acquited. I draw your
attention to section 103 of the Evidence Act, chapter 97:
"Burden
of proof
103. —(1) Whoever desires any court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts
exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact,
it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations
(a) A desires a court to give
judgment that B shall be punished for a crime
which A says B has
committed.
A must prove that B has
committed the crime.
(b) A desires a court to give
judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession
of B by reason of facts which he asserts and
which Bdenies to be true.A must prove
the existence of those facts."In
Singaporean context, 'A' is always the Prosecution.Because
proceedings whereby an accused person is charged in court are
always initiated by the Prosecution, the onus will then always lie
on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Should any lingering doubt remain, then the accused person will not
be found guilty. I will draw your attention to section 189 (1) of
the Criminal Procedure Code, chapter 68, which states:"Procedure after conclusion of case for
prosecution.
189. —(1)
When the case for the prosecution is concluded the court, if it
finds that no case against the accused has been made out which if
unrebutted would warrant his conviction, shall record an order of
acquittal or, if it does not so find, shall call on the accused to
enter on his defence."
In summary:
- the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove
the case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that the
presumption of "innocent till proven guilty" applies even in
Singapore
- there is no "right to remain silent" here in Singapore;
clearly you have been too influenced by too much of cop movies
- there is nothing against lawyers being present with their
clients during the recording of statements or whatever.
Hope this helps.
