When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Friday 12 December 2008
Possible compensation for ‘frivolous’ prosecution
Judges could soon have the power to order costs and compensation for an accused person if they find that the prosecution had been ‘frivolous’ in bringing charges against him.
Judges could soon have the power to order costs and compensation for an accused person if they find that the prosecution had been ‘frivolous’ in bringing charges against him.
This appears to be a softening of the Law Ministry’s earlier stance that those brought before the court should not be compensated.
Speaking on this subject in August, Law Minister K. Shanmugam told Parliament that the Attorney-General took care to prosecute a case only after studying police investigations.
The Attorney-General does not take on a case ‘on behalf of himself’, but to protect the public interest, he said.
But under the Criminal Procedure Code Bill, the courts would be conferred new power to order costs against the prosecution if it deems fit.
At present, civil claims can be filed by those who think they have been prosecuted maliciously.
In May, the Attorney-General said that compensation could not be paid to everyone acquitted of a crime because not everyone who is acquitted is necessarily innocent.
He was responding to a report in The Straits Times in which the issue of such compensation surfaced.
The Attorney-General said that when an accused is acquitted, it simply means that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other countries, getting compensation requires the extra burden of an acquitted person having to prove his innocence.
Lawyers welcomed the proposal on principle.
But criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan said that Singapore’s judicial system had enough checks and balances to ensure that prosecutions were not baseless or unmerited.
He said: ‘I don’t believe there has been a case of frivolous prosecution in my experience. There may have been problems in the prosecution because of the evidence or witnesses, but that does not mean it is frivolous.’
Mr. K. Anparasan, deputy managing partner at KhattarWong, felt that many details of the proposal had to be worked out.
The definition of what constituted ‘frivolous’ prosecution would be an issue, as would how to assess costs, he said.
‘It is not clear if these are full costs or reasonable costs that will be compensated. It needs to be made clear what will form the basis of costs.’
Mr. Subhas Anandan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers, said that ordering compensation for accused persons is ‘only fair’, but agreed it should not be done in every case.
He said: ‘It should only be ordered in exceptional cases where the prosecution made a boo-boo or when the prosecution practically ruined someone’s life.
1 comment:
Possible compensation for ‘frivolous’ prosecution
Sujin Thomas & Khushwant Singh
12 December 2008
Judges could soon have the power to order costs and compensation for an accused person if they find that the prosecution had been ‘frivolous’ in bringing charges against him.
This appears to be a softening of the Law Ministry’s earlier stance that those brought before the court should not be compensated.
Speaking on this subject in August, Law Minister K. Shanmugam told Parliament that the Attorney-General took care to prosecute a case only after studying police investigations.
The Attorney-General does not take on a case ‘on behalf of himself’, but to protect the public interest, he said.
But under the Criminal Procedure Code Bill, the courts would be conferred new power to order costs against the prosecution if it deems fit.
At present, civil claims can be filed by those who think they have been prosecuted maliciously.
In May, the Attorney-General said that compensation could not be paid to everyone acquitted of a crime because not everyone who is acquitted is necessarily innocent.
He was responding to a report in The Straits Times in which the issue of such compensation surfaced.
The Attorney-General said that when an accused is acquitted, it simply means that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other countries, getting compensation requires the extra burden of an acquitted person having to prove his innocence.
Lawyers welcomed the proposal on principle.
But criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan said that Singapore’s judicial system had enough checks and balances to ensure that prosecutions were not baseless or unmerited.
He said: ‘I don’t believe there has been a case of frivolous prosecution in my experience. There may have been problems in the prosecution because of the evidence or witnesses, but that does not mean it is frivolous.’
Mr. K. Anparasan, deputy managing partner at KhattarWong, felt that many details of the proposal had to be worked out.
The definition of what constituted ‘frivolous’ prosecution would be an issue, as would how to assess costs, he said.
‘It is not clear if these are full costs or reasonable costs that will be compensated. It needs to be made clear what will form the basis of costs.’
Mr. Subhas Anandan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers, said that ordering compensation for accused persons is ‘only fair’, but agreed it should not be done in every case.
He said: ‘It should only be ordered in exceptional cases where the prosecution made a boo-boo or when the prosecution practically ruined someone’s life.
‘And there should be an apology too.’
Post a Comment