Code should state explicitly accused’s right, lawyers say in feedback on draft
By K. C. Vijayan 3 March 2009
Lawyers here think that the proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code do not go far enough.
The Law Society and the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS), in their feedback on the code’s draft changes, agree, for instance, that the code should state categorically that a person accused of a crime is entitled to early access to a lawyer.
This issue was not even addressed in the draft changes to the Criminal Procedure Code, a document which provides the regulatory framework for criminal investigations, trials, appeals and other related matters here.
The two groups of lawyers also believe that the code should require the prosecution to be more open with the defence about the documents it is using to build its case.
The proposed changes to the code, which is being wholly reviewed for the first time in 40 years, were announced last December by the Law Ministry in a push to ensure that the country’s criminal justice system remains relevant.
In the 10 weeks since then, feedback on the proposed changes has been collected. The feedback exercise closed last Saturday.
On the right of accused persons to legal counsel, the Law Society wants the right spelt out, with provisions marking the extent of that right.
It said that although the Singapore Constitution enshrined the right, its interpretation has been left to the courts.
Like the ACLS, the Law Society takes issue as to when the accused should be given access to a lawyer, and suggests that this be at the point of arrest. It said there were no ‘sound reasons’ for delaying an accused person’s access to a lawyer, and that there was ‘no actual empirical basis’ to think that this would get in the way of investigations into a case.
‘In every local case on this issue, the Courts have simply assumed this to be so on a purely theoretical basis,’ the society argued in its submissions, which were put together by a committee chaired by Senior Counsel Sant Singh.
Countries like Australia, Britain and the United States all uphold the practice of telling an accused person that he has the right to a lawyer upon arrest and upon being charged with a crime.
Singapore ‘has not kept abreast’ of this, said the Law Society. Lawyers want accused persons to be told of their right to consult a lawyer upon arrest.
It proposes that accused persons be given up to two hours to contact their lawyer by telephone, or if after office hours, up to 10am the next day.
Also, if speedy access to the lawyer is not possible because evidence of a crime may be compromised or for other reasons, a delay can be allowed.
The ACLS suggests that at least, accused persons should be told of their rights to a lawyer and be seen by one within 48 hours of arrest.
On better disclosure of documents to defence counsel, the lawyers want, for instance, witness statements in district court cases to be shared with the defence, at least in the serious cases, as is done for High Court cases.
Prosecutors are now only obliged to disclose the parts of the statement or statements on which they intend to rely in the case, but the ACLS said the statement should be produced in its entirety so information is not taken out of context.
The Law Ministry received over 40 responses from the public and legal circles on the proposed changes. A Law Ministry spokesman said that the Government would consider all views received and incorporate the suggestions into the draft where appropriate.
1 comment:
Hot issue: Early access to a lawyer
Code should state explicitly accused’s right, lawyers say in feedback on draft
By K. C. Vijayan
3 March 2009
Lawyers here think that the proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code do not go far enough.
The Law Society and the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS), in their feedback on the code’s draft changes, agree, for instance, that the code should state categorically that a person accused of a crime is entitled to early access to a lawyer.
This issue was not even addressed in the draft changes to the Criminal Procedure Code, a document which provides the regulatory framework for criminal investigations, trials, appeals and other related matters here.
The two groups of lawyers also believe that the code should require the prosecution to be more open with the defence about the documents it is using to build its case.
The proposed changes to the code, which is being wholly reviewed for the first time in 40 years, were announced last December by the Law Ministry in a push to ensure that the country’s criminal justice system remains relevant.
In the 10 weeks since then, feedback on the proposed changes has been collected. The feedback exercise closed last Saturday.
On the right of accused persons to legal counsel, the Law Society wants the right spelt out, with provisions marking the extent of that right.
It said that although the Singapore Constitution enshrined the right, its interpretation has been left to the courts.
Like the ACLS, the Law Society takes issue as to when the accused should be given access to a lawyer, and suggests that this be at the point of arrest. It said there were no ‘sound reasons’ for delaying an accused person’s access to a lawyer, and that there was ‘no actual empirical basis’ to think that this would get in the way of investigations into a case.
‘In every local case on this issue, the Courts have simply assumed this to be so on a purely theoretical basis,’ the society argued in its submissions, which were put together by a committee chaired by Senior Counsel Sant Singh.
Countries like Australia, Britain and the United States all uphold the practice of telling an accused person that he has the right to a lawyer upon arrest and upon being charged with a crime.
Singapore ‘has not kept abreast’ of this, said the Law Society. Lawyers want accused persons to be told of their right to consult a lawyer upon arrest.
It proposes that accused persons be given up to two hours to contact their lawyer by telephone, or if after office hours, up to 10am the next day.
Also, if speedy access to the lawyer is not possible because evidence of a crime may be compromised or for other reasons, a delay can be allowed.
The ACLS suggests that at least, accused persons should be told of their rights to a lawyer and be seen by one within 48 hours of arrest.
On better disclosure of documents to defence counsel, the lawyers want, for instance, witness statements in district court cases to be shared with the defence, at least in the serious cases, as is done for High Court cases.
Prosecutors are now only obliged to disclose the parts of the statement or statements on which they intend to rely in the case, but the ACLS said the statement should be produced in its entirety so information is not taken out of context.
The Law Ministry received over 40 responses from the public and legal circles on the proposed changes. A Law Ministry spokesman said that the Government would consider all views received and incorporate the suggestions into the draft where appropriate.
Post a Comment