I just want to digest an article I read:
Oct 19, 2005
Accused's instant access to lawyer could hamper police probes
SOME arrested and accused persons are denied immediate access to
their lawyers to avoid compromising investigations, said Deputy
Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng
yesterday.
An accused person would have access to legal counsel when police
were close to or had wrapped up investigations, but not during the
arrest and throughout police interviews, he said.
This is especially so where the prosecution relies mainly on
testimony given by witnesses, and on the accused leading them to
crime scenes, accomplices and other corroborating evidence.
If the accused speaks with third parties before police wrap up
investigations, it 'may result in evidence being destroyed or
accomplices being alerted'.
The issue came to light recently when factory supervisor Leong Siew
Chor, 50, was charged on June 18 for the murder of Chinese national
Liu Hong Mei.
It was only on July 9 that his lawyer saw Leong, who was held in
remand for investigations during that time.
Nominated MP Eunice Olsen, who had asked about an accused person's
rights to legal counsel, pressed for details, saying: 'How does
legal counsel impede or compromise the investigation process?
Wouldn't a lawyer better advise a client to cooperate with the
police?'
Mr Wong disagreed.
During interviews, the accused could be questioned on highly
confidential or sensitive matters surrounding the alleged crime, he
said.
These include facts, documentary evidence, physical evidence,
witness testimonies, locations and the proceeds of crime, he
explained.
Absolute confidentiality is a must. 'Otherwise there is a risk of
critical evidence being destroyed or tampered with, witnesses being
intimidated and proceeds of crime being removed or dissipated,' he
said.
The only way to prevent leaks 'is for the defence counsel not to be
present during interviews'.
It would also be difficult for the police to ensure the accused is
not coached on how to answer questions.
A lawyer could use non-verbal means such as 'a hand signal, a
gesture or body language' like a smile, nodding his head, shaking
his hand, frowning, winking and others, explained Mr Wong.
In any case, not giving an accused person immediate access to his
lawyer does not violate his rights, he said.
The Constitution says: '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.'
In interpreting this, the courts determined that this right 'is to
be exercised within a reasonable time after arrest, and not
immediate upon arrest', he said.
What is reasonable time depends on the circumstances of each
case.
Said Mr Wong: 'We need to strike a balance between the rights of
the accused person to consult counsel and the public interest in
ensuring that the police are able to effectively investigate each
case.'
