- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,634
- Points
- 0
LAW Society president Michael Hwang has again called for ground rules to govern how the police interrogate suspects and witnesses in custody.
Writing in the latest issue of the Law Gazette, which is published monthly by the society, Senior Counsel Hwang said it was worth reflecting that there is no legal code or published procedure for the treatment of such people under probe.
The article comes in the wake of changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which was approved earlier this week by President S R Nathan.
In the run-up to discussions on what should go into the Bill last year, the Law Society had recommended, among other things, that limits be set on the length of any continuous period of interrogation of a witness and provisions made for reasonable rest periods and meal breaks.
But when the changes were presented to Parliament, this issue was not among the proposed changes.
Mr Hwang voiced concerns based on past experience, which showed that clients had been 'subjected to long and trying investigations by government agencies'.
He cited a recent example where a client was interviewed by a government agency for 36 hours with 'virtually no break and certainly no extended period of rest'. He did not give specifics.
The effect of the prolonged interrogation, he said, was that the interviewee 'ended up making statements which were questionable as to whether they reflected his true feelings or recollections'.
People who are extremely tired and have been subjected to repeated stress without seeing a lawyer tend to say things which are often the suggested words of the interviewer rather than their own, Mr Hwang added.
The lawyer, who has over 40 years of experience and has led the society since December 2007, pointed to England and New South Wales in Australia where rules are in place to ensure the fair and humane treatment of suspects and witnesses.
For example, in England, the code provides for at least one main meal and two light meals for someone being questioned over 24 hours. He must also be allowed a continuous eight-hour period of rest, among other things.
'We can argue about the rights and wrongs of many things in our CPC, but it seems hard to argue against the introduction of some ground rules in controlling the manner in which people are detained for questioning,' said Mr Hwang.
Association of Criminal Lawyers president Subhas Anandan said Mr Hwang's idea was 'all the more needed' as there was nothing said about access to counsel in the CPC to ensure suspects are not unreasonably treated.
He clarified that access means suspects should be allowed to see their lawyers at least once he is brought out to be charged after 48 hours of detention.
Early access to counsel does not take place in all cases here, unlike in England and Australia.
'If you want to win the confidence of the public, why take statements that implicate the accused at 3am or 4am? I'm told it happens in 10 per cent of the cases but it should be zero per cent,' said Mr Anandan.
National University of Singapore law lecturer Michael Hor believes there are some ground rules which the police here adopt, but these are not as detailed as the codes of practice found elsewhere, nor are they completely made public.
'I think we can, and should, improve on what we have, but we should proceed organically and in a consultative spirit,' he said.
'The crux of matter is to strike an appropriate balance between increasing transparency and public accountability, and the need to be careful not to put in place rules which might hamper and obstruct urgent and legitimate police action.'
Writing in the latest issue of the Law Gazette, which is published monthly by the society, Senior Counsel Hwang said it was worth reflecting that there is no legal code or published procedure for the treatment of such people under probe.
The article comes in the wake of changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which was approved earlier this week by President S R Nathan.
In the run-up to discussions on what should go into the Bill last year, the Law Society had recommended, among other things, that limits be set on the length of any continuous period of interrogation of a witness and provisions made for reasonable rest periods and meal breaks.
But when the changes were presented to Parliament, this issue was not among the proposed changes.
Mr Hwang voiced concerns based on past experience, which showed that clients had been 'subjected to long and trying investigations by government agencies'.
He cited a recent example where a client was interviewed by a government agency for 36 hours with 'virtually no break and certainly no extended period of rest'. He did not give specifics.
The effect of the prolonged interrogation, he said, was that the interviewee 'ended up making statements which were questionable as to whether they reflected his true feelings or recollections'.
People who are extremely tired and have been subjected to repeated stress without seeing a lawyer tend to say things which are often the suggested words of the interviewer rather than their own, Mr Hwang added.
The lawyer, who has over 40 years of experience and has led the society since December 2007, pointed to England and New South Wales in Australia where rules are in place to ensure the fair and humane treatment of suspects and witnesses.
For example, in England, the code provides for at least one main meal and two light meals for someone being questioned over 24 hours. He must also be allowed a continuous eight-hour period of rest, among other things.
'We can argue about the rights and wrongs of many things in our CPC, but it seems hard to argue against the introduction of some ground rules in controlling the manner in which people are detained for questioning,' said Mr Hwang.
Association of Criminal Lawyers president Subhas Anandan said Mr Hwang's idea was 'all the more needed' as there was nothing said about access to counsel in the CPC to ensure suspects are not unreasonably treated.
He clarified that access means suspects should be allowed to see their lawyers at least once he is brought out to be charged after 48 hours of detention.
Early access to counsel does not take place in all cases here, unlike in England and Australia.
'If you want to win the confidence of the public, why take statements that implicate the accused at 3am or 4am? I'm told it happens in 10 per cent of the cases but it should be zero per cent,' said Mr Anandan.
National University of Singapore law lecturer Michael Hor believes there are some ground rules which the police here adopt, but these are not as detailed as the codes of practice found elsewhere, nor are they completely made public.
'I think we can, and should, improve on what we have, but we should proceed organically and in a consultative spirit,' he said.
'The crux of matter is to strike an appropriate balance between increasing transparency and public accountability, and the need to be careful not to put in place rules which might hamper and obstruct urgent and legitimate police action.'
