- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 985
- Points
- 0
Procedural lapses in handcuffing of Wanbao photographer by Singapore police
July 18th, 2010 |
Author: Your Correspondent
OPINION
The handcuffing and temporary detention of Lianhe Wanbao photographer Mr Wu Qing Shun by a police officer yesterday at Bukit Timah sparked a massive outcry in cyberspace with many netizens lampooning the police for “misuse” of power.
Let us study the two accounts given by Mr Wu and the Singapore Police Force
Mr Wu’s account:
Mr Wu was on duty that morning taking photos of the flooding. He claimed that the police officer was sitting in a police car at that time, and only put on his raincoat and left the car after he saw him taking photos.
Mr Wu said that the police officer told him to move off, but he politely requested to take another photo. Just as he had finished speaking, the police officer had already taken out his handcuffs and handcuffed his right wrist.
When Mr Wu tried to take a photo of his handcuffed wrist, the police officer immediately removed the handcuff.
The police officer brought Mr Wu to a condominium along the road and asked him to wait till the investigation personnel arrived. He waited there for one hour before he was allowed to leave.
Singapore Police Force’s account:
Mr Wu was posing a danger to himself and the public and was asked by the police officer to leave several times, but refused to do so. As such, the police officer has no choice but to handcuff him for “obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty.”
He was then brought to a safe area and was allowed to leave after the police ascertained that he did not pose a threat to public safety.
Analysis
There are obvious discrepancies in the accounts given by Mr Wu and the Singapore Police Force.
1. According to Mr Wu, the police officer was sitting in a police car when he was taking the photos and therefore it is impossible that Mr Wu was being obstructing the traffic or posing a danger to the public at that time.
2. Mr Wu claimed that he spoke only a few words to the police officer. However, the Singapore Police Force insisted that Mr Wu had been warned several times to leave the scene.
3. Mr Wu said he was detained for one hour to wait for the arrival of investigation personnel, but the Singapore Police Force claimed the detention was for the police to remove Mr Wu from the “danger” area.
The inherent differences in the conflicting accounts given by the two parties are impossible to reconcile and seem to suggest that one is lying.
Regardless of who is speaking the truth, the police has committed a few procedural lapses under the Criminal Procedural Code based on the police’s account alone.
Under Section 32 of the Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68), the police has the power to arrest without warrant
“any person who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty or who has escaped or attempts to escape from lawful custody.”
As such, the police officer has the right to arrest Mr Wu if he was deemed to have obstructed him in the discharge of his public duties under Section 186 of the Penal Code (CAP 224):
“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both.”
In this case, there is nothing technically wrong in Mr Wu being handcuffed, but in what transpired after his so-called “arrest”:
Procedural lapses under Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68)
Upon being handcuffed, Mr Wu is technically being arrested. As such, under Section 35 of the Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68):
“A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein as to bail or previous release, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate’s Court.”
If the Magistrate’s Court is closed on the weekends, then Mr Wu must be held in police custody for no more than 48 hours before being produced before a Magistrate’s Court to be charged for whatever offence he has committed.
It is baffling that the Mr Wu’s handcuffs were released almost immediately after he tried to take a snapshot of it. Strictly speaking, he was already arrested and should be sent to the Magistrate’s court under the CPC.
Furthermore, the police officer cannot simply just remove the handcuffs without any writing from a Magistrate or a police officer not below the rank of a sergeant under Section 37 of the CPC:
“No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be released except on his own bond or on bail or under the special order in writing of a Magistrate or of a police officer not below the rank of sergeant.”
The actions of the police officer handcuffing Mr Wu are totally incongruent with the stipulations proscribed under the CPC which all police officers have to follow in the course of duty.
Conclusion
The glaring procedural lapses in this case cast serious doubts on the professionalism and competence of the Singapore Police Force.
Both the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law should account to the public and answer the following questions:
1. Did Mr Wu commit an offence under the law and if so, which law?
2. If Mr Wu did commit an offence, why was he handcuffed only momentarily and not arrested?
3. Was Mr Wu arrested at all?
4. Why was Mr Wu not sent to a Magistrate’s Court or the police HQ for detention after he was arrested?
5. Why was Mr Wu being released arbitrarily one hour later after he was arrested without any written order from a Magistrate?
6. What are the legal grounds for detaining Mr Wu for one hour?
7. If Mr Wu was not arrested at all, is it lawful for the police to detain him (somemore at an inappropriate venue)?
Whether Mr Wu was indeed arrested or not, there remain many inconsistencies in the way the police conducted its operations.
Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs Shanmugam said lately that his ministry will be upgrading the knowledge and skills of its investigation officers.
They should be taught to memorize the entire CPC by heart before being sent outfield for operative duties lest they disgraced the entire police force and made a fool of themselves again in the eyes of the public.
OPINION
The handcuffing and temporary detention of Lianhe Wanbao photographer Mr Wu Qing Shun by a police officer yesterday at Bukit Timah sparked a massive outcry in cyberspace with many netizens lampooning the police for “misuse” of power.
Let us study the two accounts given by Mr Wu and the Singapore Police Force
Mr Wu’s account:
Mr Wu was on duty that morning taking photos of the flooding. He claimed that the police officer was sitting in a police car at that time, and only put on his raincoat and left the car after he saw him taking photos.
Mr Wu said that the police officer told him to move off, but he politely requested to take another photo. Just as he had finished speaking, the police officer had already taken out his handcuffs and handcuffed his right wrist.
When Mr Wu tried to take a photo of his handcuffed wrist, the police officer immediately removed the handcuff.
The police officer brought Mr Wu to a condominium along the road and asked him to wait till the investigation personnel arrived. He waited there for one hour before he was allowed to leave.
Singapore Police Force’s account:
Mr Wu was posing a danger to himself and the public and was asked by the police officer to leave several times, but refused to do so. As such, the police officer has no choice but to handcuff him for “obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty.”
He was then brought to a safe area and was allowed to leave after the police ascertained that he did not pose a threat to public safety.
Analysis
There are obvious discrepancies in the accounts given by Mr Wu and the Singapore Police Force.
1. According to Mr Wu, the police officer was sitting in a police car when he was taking the photos and therefore it is impossible that Mr Wu was being obstructing the traffic or posing a danger to the public at that time.
2. Mr Wu claimed that he spoke only a few words to the police officer. However, the Singapore Police Force insisted that Mr Wu had been warned several times to leave the scene.
3. Mr Wu said he was detained for one hour to wait for the arrival of investigation personnel, but the Singapore Police Force claimed the detention was for the police to remove Mr Wu from the “danger” area.
The inherent differences in the conflicting accounts given by the two parties are impossible to reconcile and seem to suggest that one is lying.
Regardless of who is speaking the truth, the police has committed a few procedural lapses under the Criminal Procedural Code based on the police’s account alone.
Under Section 32 of the Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68), the police has the power to arrest without warrant
“any person who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty or who has escaped or attempts to escape from lawful custody.”
As such, the police officer has the right to arrest Mr Wu if he was deemed to have obstructed him in the discharge of his public duties under Section 186 of the Penal Code (CAP 224):
“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both.”
In this case, there is nothing technically wrong in Mr Wu being handcuffed, but in what transpired after his so-called “arrest”:
Procedural lapses under Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68)
Upon being handcuffed, Mr Wu is technically being arrested. As such, under Section 35 of the Criminal Procedural Code (CAP 68):
“A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein as to bail or previous release, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate’s Court.”
If the Magistrate’s Court is closed on the weekends, then Mr Wu must be held in police custody for no more than 48 hours before being produced before a Magistrate’s Court to be charged for whatever offence he has committed.
It is baffling that the Mr Wu’s handcuffs were released almost immediately after he tried to take a snapshot of it. Strictly speaking, he was already arrested and should be sent to the Magistrate’s court under the CPC.
Furthermore, the police officer cannot simply just remove the handcuffs without any writing from a Magistrate or a police officer not below the rank of a sergeant under Section 37 of the CPC:
“No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be released except on his own bond or on bail or under the special order in writing of a Magistrate or of a police officer not below the rank of sergeant.”
The actions of the police officer handcuffing Mr Wu are totally incongruent with the stipulations proscribed under the CPC which all police officers have to follow in the course of duty.
Conclusion
The glaring procedural lapses in this case cast serious doubts on the professionalism and competence of the Singapore Police Force.
Both the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law should account to the public and answer the following questions:
1. Did Mr Wu commit an offence under the law and if so, which law?
2. If Mr Wu did commit an offence, why was he handcuffed only momentarily and not arrested?
3. Was Mr Wu arrested at all?
4. Why was Mr Wu not sent to a Magistrate’s Court or the police HQ for detention after he was arrested?
5. Why was Mr Wu being released arbitrarily one hour later after he was arrested without any written order from a Magistrate?
6. What are the legal grounds for detaining Mr Wu for one hour?
7. If Mr Wu was not arrested at all, is it lawful for the police to detain him (somemore at an inappropriate venue)?
Whether Mr Wu was indeed arrested or not, there remain many inconsistencies in the way the police conducted its operations.
Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs Shanmugam said lately that his ministry will be upgrading the knowledge and skills of its investigation officers.
They should be taught to memorize the entire CPC by heart before being sent outfield for operative duties lest they disgraced the entire police force and made a fool of themselves again in the eyes of the public.
:oIo:
