<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>BEST PAID govt that simply REFUSES to work!
To settle or not: Let prosecutor decide?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent and Esther Tan
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->SHOULD the final decision whether or not to compound certain offences lie in the hands of the prosecution?
Proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code seek to leave such decisions to the public prosecutor before an accused person is charged in court, effectively doing away with the need for a district judge to give the okay before an offence is compounded.
Under the law, certain criminal offences such as simple molest cases, wrongful restraint and causing hurt can be settled out of court if the victim agrees to drop the matter in place of some form of compensation. An offender who has had his offence compounded will not have a criminal record.
Most lawyers contacted supported the move to leave such decisions with the public prosecutor, saying it will boost efficiency and prevent the courts from being swamped with these cases, which are usually less serious offences.
But lawyers such as Mr B.J. Lean said there should be some form of appeal available in the event the prosecutor does not agree to an offence being compounded.
Law Minister K. Shanmugam, speaking to reporters after the launch of a book on the late David Marshall last night, said this proposed change would simplify the whole process. 'Previously, you had two hurdles...the prosecutor had to agree and the courts had to agree.
'What we're now doing is to allow the prosecutor to compound without the matter even having to go to court so that there is only one hurdle.'
The Law Ministry, in its consultation paper on the proposed changes to the Code, said the public prosecutor should be the person to decide on composition matters since he has 'control and direction over all criminal proceedings' and is able to assess each case after taking into account public interest.
Senior lawyer Edmond Pereira said the move will help to ease the flood of cases in the courts. The proposals codify current practice to some extent, he said, noting that there has hardly been a case where a judge overruled any objection by the prosecutor to an offer to compound.
Lawyer N. Sreenivasan said the prosecutor is in a better position to make such decisions, given his wide investigative powers.
'He has more information at his disposal to make a decision whether to compound an offence or not, rather than the court which acts on the evidence placed before it,' he said.
But he felt that cases involving matters of clear public interest should be reserved for the courts to decide.
Lawyer Wendell Wong pointed out that 'public interest can mean different things to different people'. He suggested clear guidelines such as for categories of offences and aggravating factors that will be applied by the prosecutor in exercising his discretion on such matters. This would help clear doubts when composition is not granted.
But some lawyers like Mr Ravinderpal Singh are not comfortable with vesting such powers with the prosecutor and prefer that the courts have the final say. He said that if the decision is left to a judge, there is always room for appeal, whereas there is no such avenue if the decision is made by the public prosecutor.
To settle or not: Let prosecutor decide?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent and Esther Tan
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->SHOULD the final decision whether or not to compound certain offences lie in the hands of the prosecution?
Proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code seek to leave such decisions to the public prosecutor before an accused person is charged in court, effectively doing away with the need for a district judge to give the okay before an offence is compounded.
Under the law, certain criminal offences such as simple molest cases, wrongful restraint and causing hurt can be settled out of court if the victim agrees to drop the matter in place of some form of compensation. An offender who has had his offence compounded will not have a criminal record.
Most lawyers contacted supported the move to leave such decisions with the public prosecutor, saying it will boost efficiency and prevent the courts from being swamped with these cases, which are usually less serious offences.
But lawyers such as Mr B.J. Lean said there should be some form of appeal available in the event the prosecutor does not agree to an offence being compounded.
Law Minister K. Shanmugam, speaking to reporters after the launch of a book on the late David Marshall last night, said this proposed change would simplify the whole process. 'Previously, you had two hurdles...the prosecutor had to agree and the courts had to agree.
'What we're now doing is to allow the prosecutor to compound without the matter even having to go to court so that there is only one hurdle.'
The Law Ministry, in its consultation paper on the proposed changes to the Code, said the public prosecutor should be the person to decide on composition matters since he has 'control and direction over all criminal proceedings' and is able to assess each case after taking into account public interest.
Senior lawyer Edmond Pereira said the move will help to ease the flood of cases in the courts. The proposals codify current practice to some extent, he said, noting that there has hardly been a case where a judge overruled any objection by the prosecutor to an offer to compound.
Lawyer N. Sreenivasan said the prosecutor is in a better position to make such decisions, given his wide investigative powers.
'He has more information at his disposal to make a decision whether to compound an offence or not, rather than the court which acts on the evidence placed before it,' he said.
But he felt that cases involving matters of clear public interest should be reserved for the courts to decide.
Lawyer Wendell Wong pointed out that 'public interest can mean different things to different people'. He suggested clear guidelines such as for categories of offences and aggravating factors that will be applied by the prosecutor in exercising his discretion on such matters. This would help clear doubts when composition is not granted.
But some lawyers like Mr Ravinderpal Singh are not comfortable with vesting such powers with the prosecutor and prefer that the courts have the final say. He said that if the decision is left to a judge, there is always room for appeal, whereas there is no such avenue if the decision is made by the public prosecutor.
