In Parliament on Monday, Minister for Law Mr K Shanmugam was asked whether he would consider introducing a law to ban the publication of photographs and details of any accused person until the accused person was convicted in a court of law.
The question was prompted by the recent publicity over the 48 men accused of having commercial sex with a minor.
In response, Mr Shanmugam said: "Our legal system operates on the principle of public justice. Accused persons are publicly tried. The verdict of the court is publicly announced. Reporting of ongoing proceedings is allowed so long as it does not prejudice the proper administration of justice. The exceptions to the principle are limited - they mainly apply to protect sensitive information relating to national security, as well as the identities of young persons and the victims of sexual offences."
He added that it was undeniable that accused persons often suffered from the adverse publicity arising from their cases.
He suggested two possible ways to prevent the accused from being publicly identified until conviction.
The first way was to empower the court to make a gag order, prohibiting the publication of any information that may identify the accused, while allowing the public and the press to attend the proceedings.
The second possibility was to hold the proceedings in camera and prevent the public and the press from attending the proceedings altogether.
Mr Shanmugam said: "The first way will not be effective. The identity of the accused will still be known to all who attend court. From there, it can easily become public. And imposing a gag order on those who do observe the court proceedings would mean (even if the order is effective) that there is a differential in knowledge between those who attend court and those who do not. That is not very satisfactory.
"The second way could possibly be effective. But it would also amount to having secret trials, where accused persons are tried behind closed doors. We then have to decide the types of cases where there will be such trials... To move to a situation where most or all criminal trials will be held in secret is not very satisfactory."
He concluded that justice must be done, and must be seen to be done.
He added that there must be an increase in public awareness that a charge is not the same as a conviction, and that an accused person is presumed innocent until found guilty by the court.
But he recognised that increasing such awareness was a significantly uphill task.
The question was prompted by the recent publicity over the 48 men accused of having commercial sex with a minor.
In response, Mr Shanmugam said: "Our legal system operates on the principle of public justice. Accused persons are publicly tried. The verdict of the court is publicly announced. Reporting of ongoing proceedings is allowed so long as it does not prejudice the proper administration of justice. The exceptions to the principle are limited - they mainly apply to protect sensitive information relating to national security, as well as the identities of young persons and the victims of sexual offences."
He added that it was undeniable that accused persons often suffered from the adverse publicity arising from their cases.
He suggested two possible ways to prevent the accused from being publicly identified until conviction.
The first way was to empower the court to make a gag order, prohibiting the publication of any information that may identify the accused, while allowing the public and the press to attend the proceedings.
The second possibility was to hold the proceedings in camera and prevent the public and the press from attending the proceedings altogether.
Mr Shanmugam said: "The first way will not be effective. The identity of the accused will still be known to all who attend court. From there, it can easily become public. And imposing a gag order on those who do observe the court proceedings would mean (even if the order is effective) that there is a differential in knowledge between those who attend court and those who do not. That is not very satisfactory.
"The second way could possibly be effective. But it would also amount to having secret trials, where accused persons are tried behind closed doors. We then have to decide the types of cases where there will be such trials... To move to a situation where most or all criminal trials will be held in secret is not very satisfactory."
He concluded that justice must be done, and must be seen to be done.
He added that there must be an increase in public awareness that a charge is not the same as a conviction, and that an accused person is presumed innocent until found guilty by the court.
But he recognised that increasing such awareness was a significantly uphill task.
Last edited:
