wrongful convictions in singapore: a … wrongful convictions in singapore: a general survey of risk...

I. INTRODUCTIONWrongfulconvictions,definedas“theconvictionof thefactually innocent”,1arearecognised problem in many countries. Every single wrongful conviction evokesoutrage and shakes public confidence. Huff estimates that even if the system isaccurate99.5%ofthetime,27500personsarrestedforindexcrimesintheUSAwouldhavebeenwrongfullyconvictedin2000.OtherstudieshaveapproximatedamuchhigherrateofwrongfulconvictionsintheUSA.3Theirreversiblenatureofcapitalpunishmentdrawsevengreaterattention towrongfulconvictions incountries thatretainthedeathpenalty.

Singaporeisonesuchcountry.Whilethiscity-statehasbeencriticisedforretaining

* LL.B. (NUS) 2007, LL.M. (Harvard) 2010; Lecturer of Law, SingaporeManagementUniversity.** LL.B. (NUS) 2007, LL.M. (Harvard) 2010; Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court ofSingapore.1 ThisisamodifiedversionofthedefinitionofferedinRonaldHuff,“WrongfulConvictionandPublicPolicy”(2002)40Criminal.1.2 Ibid.Thisfigureisbasedonhalvingtheresponseofthemajoritytoasurveyabouthowoftenthesamplethoughtwrongfulconvictionsoccurredinfelonycases.3 SeeBarryScheckandPeterNeufeld,”DNAandinnocencescholarship”inSaundraD.Westervelt&JohnA.Humphrey,eds.,Wrongfully Convicted: Perspectives on Failed Justice (NewBrunswick:RutgersUniversityPress,2001)241at246–47.Theysuggestarateof25%basedonDNAexonerationsinsexualassaultcases.

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS IN SINGAPORE: A GENERAL SURVEY OF RISK FACTORS

Chen Siyuan* and euniCe Chua**

This article seeks to raise awareness about the potential for wrongful convictions in Singapore by analysing the factors commonly identified as contributing towards wrongful convictions in other jurisdictions, including institutional failures and suspect evidence. It also considers whether the social conditions in Singapore are favourable to discovering and publicising wrongful convictions. The authors come to the conclusion that Singapore does well on a number of fronts and no sweeping reforms are necessary. However, there are areas of risk, viz the excessive focus on crime control rather than due process, which require some tweaking of the system.

SingaporeLawReview(2010)28Sing.L.Rev.98-123

99 Wrongful Convictions In Singapore: A General Survey Of Risk Factors (2010)

thedeathpenalty4 aswell as perceived as having a coldly efficient judiciary5 anda government that seeminglyprioritises community safety over individual rights,6the allegationsofwrongful convictions are fewand far between.ThepreliminaryassumptionthenisthatSingaporehassucceededinminimisingwrongfulconvictions.

This paper examines the level of risk of wrongful convictions in Singaporeby analysing the factors commonly identified as contributing towards wrongfulconvictions in other jurisdictions, including institutional failures and suspectevidence.ItalsoconsiderswhetherthesocialconditionsinSingaporearefavourabletodiscoveringandpublicisingwrongfulconvictions.

II. POSSIBLERISKFACTORSTOWRONGFULCONVICTIONSINSINGAPORE

A. Philosophy of the Criminal Justice System

Generally,theunderlyingphilosophyofalegalsystemaffectshowitsplayersdealwiththepossibilityofwrongfulconvictions.Asystemthatemphasiseslawandorderinsteadofprotectingtheinnocentmaytendtooverlookcertaincontributoryrisks.

Singapore’scriminalprocesshasbeendescribedbya formerAttorney-General(AG)asembodyingabalanceofthe“crimecontrolmodel”and“dueprocessmodel”7aswellasbeing“approximatetothevaluesystemofthecrimecontrolmodel”.8Inthecrimecontrolmodel,therepressionofcriminalconductisbyfarthemostimportantfunctiontobeperformedbythecriminalprocess.9Thesuccessfulconclusionofthismodelisnotthecourtconviction,butthepleaof“guilty”.10Casesmustbeprocessedquicklyandwithfinality;theapplicationoftheadministrativeexpertise(ofthepoliceandprosecutor)shouldresultinanearlydeterminationof“probableguilt”or“probableinnocence”suchthattheprobablyinnocentarescreenedoutandtheprobablyguilty

4 Seee.g.AmnestyInternational,“Singapore:Thedeathpenalty-Ahiddentollofexecutions”(15January2004),online:<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA360012004>.5 Seee.g.MichaelHor,“TheDeathPenaltyinSingaporeandInternationalLaw”(2004)8S.Y.B.I.L.105at115.6 SeeSing.,Parliament,“SharedValuesWhitePaper”,Cmd.1of1991(15January1993)(Onesuchsharedvalueis“nationbeforecommunityandsocietyaboveself”).7 ChanSekKeong,“TheCriminalProcess–TheSingaporeModel”(1996)Sing.L.Rev.431at443[Chan,“TheSingaporeModel”];drawingfromHerbertPacker,“TwoModelsoftheCriminalProcess”(1964)113U.Pa.L.R.1.ChanwasAttorney-GeneralofSingaporefromMay1992toApril2006.HeisthecurrentChiefJustice.8 Chan SekKeong, “Rethinking theCriminal Justice System of Singapore for the 21stCentury”inSingaporeAcademyofLaw,ed.,The Singapore Conference: Leading the Law and Lawyers into the New Millennium @ 2020 (Singapore:Butterworths,2000)50[Chan,“RethinkingtheCriminalJusticeSystem”].9 Ibid.10 Singapore’shighrateofguiltypleasisestimatedasbeingabove90%:Singapore’shighrateofguiltypleasisestimatedasbeingabove90%:ibid.at51.

passedthroughtheremainingstagesoftheprocess.11Incontrast,thecredoofthedueprocessmodelistopreventanyinnocentaccusedpersonfrombeingsubjecttotheprocess.12Thisisdonebypresentingformidableimpedimentstocarryingtheaccusedfromonestageofthecriminalprocesstothenext.13Apuredueprocessmodelwouldrequireguilttobeprovenbeyondalldoubt;andconvictions,evenoffactuallyguiltypeople,shouldbeoverturnedifthereisanymaterialirregularity.14

ThebalanceinSingaporeisstruckbyheavilyweightingthecrimecontrolsideofthescaleswithbroadlydefinedcriminallaws,whichutilisepresumptionsagainsttheaccusedandcontainharshpunishments.Theselawsaresupplementedbygovernmentcampaignsandpolicy topreventanddeter crime.Dueprocess, arguably, receivescomparativelylessattention.

1. Criminal Laws

Singapore’scriminal legislation is toughoncrimeandprioritisespublicorderandsecurity.Itbearsfeaturesofthecrimecontrolmodel.Oneexampleissection17oftheMisuse of Drugs Act,15wheretheonusisontheaccusedtoshownointentiontotrafficdrugsonceheisfoundwithanamountexceedingthestatutorylimit.Thisruleremovesobstaclestoconvictionthatwouldhavebeenpreferredbythedueprocessmodel,andfacilitatesthewayfortheprosecution.Anotherexampleissection123(1)oftheCriminal Procedure Code,16whichpermitsthecourttodrawadverseinferencesagainsttheaccusedwherehefailstomentionanyfact,whichhereasonablycouldbeexpectedtomentioninthecircumstances,whenheischargedwithanoffenceorofficiallyinformedthathemightbeprosecuted.Thisfailuremayalso,onthebasisofinference,betreatedascorroborationofanyevidencegivenagainsttheaccusedinrelationtowhichthefailureismaterial.

YetanotherexampleofpreferringthecrimecontrolmodelistheInternal Security Act,whichallowstheMinisterofHomeAffairs toorderdetentionwithout trial topreventapersonfromactinginamanner“prejudicialtothesecurityofSingapore”.17In1989,alegislativeamendmenttotheConstitution18madejudicialreviewoftheISAonsubstantivegroundsunavailable.ThisamendmentfollowedChng Suan Tze v. Minister of Home Affairs,19wherethecourtappliedanobjectivestandardofreview

11 Chan,“TheSingaporeModel”,Chan,“TheSingaporeModel”,TheSingaporeModel”,supranote7at440–41.12 Ibid.at441.13 Ibid.14 Ibid.at442.SeealsoXP v. Public Prosecutor, [2008]4Sing.L.R.(R)686(H.C.)atparas.90–94,whereV.K.RajahJ.A.dispelstheoft-invokeddistinctionbetween‘factualguilt’and‘legalguilt’.15 (Cap.185,2001Rev.Ed.Sing.).(Cap.185,2001Rev.Ed.Sing.).16 (Cap.68,1985Rev.Ed.Sing.)[(Cap.68,1985Rev.Ed.Sing.)[(Cap.68,1985Rev.Ed.Sing.)[CPC].17 (Cap.143,1985Rev.Ed.Sing.)[(Cap.143,1985Rev.Ed.Sing.)[ISA],s.8.18 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore(1999Rev.Ed.)[Constitution of Singapore]asamendedbyConstitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1989(No.1of1989,Sing.).19 [1989]1M.L.J.69(Sing.C.A.)[[1989]1M.L.J.69(Sing.C.A.)[[1989]1M.L.J.69(Sing.C.A.)[Chng Suan Tze].

Singapore Law Review 10028Sing.L.Rev.


over theMinisterialOrder.Whatever its justification20, the ISA clearly contradictsthedueprocessmodelbecausetheaccusedisdeprivedofapublictrial.Shouldtheaccusedbe tried,hemaybe found innocentunder thestandardofproofbeyondareasonabledoubt,21leadingtoanacquittal.

However,systemicsafeguardsdoexist.Thedetainingauthoritymustinformthedetaineeofthegroundsforhisdetention(subjecttonationalinterestconsiderations)and of the allegations of fact on which the order is based. It must also give thedetainee the opportunity ofmaking representations against detention.22Where thedetentionperiodexceeds threemonths,aspeciallyconstitutedadvisoryboardwillconsiderfurtherrepresentationsbythedetaineebeforemakingrecommendationstothePresident,whomaywithhold concurrence to theDetentionOrder.23Certainly,it is arguable that this safeguard is ineffective because the President’s ability towithholdconcurrenceisonly triggeredwhenanadvisoryboarddisagreeswith theCabinet’sdecision.24Thisisauniquesituationwheretheriskofwrongfulconvictionisparticularlyhigh.

Ordinarily, judicial safeguards exist to protect the innocent from wrongfulconviction. TheConstitution of Singapore, the Evidence Act,25 theCPC and thecommonlawprovidefor,inter alia,(1)thedeprivationoftherighttolifeandlibertyonlyinaccordancewithlaw;26(2)equalitybeforethelawandtheequalprotectionofthelaw;27(3)therightofanaccusedtobeinformedofthegroundsofhisarrestandtobedefendedbyanadvocateofhischoice;28(4)therightofadetainedsuspecttobebroughtwithoutunreasonabledelay,andinanycase,within48hoursbeforeamagistrate;29(5)thepresumptionofinnocence,wheretheburdenofproofisplacedontheprosecutor;30and(6)proofbeyondareasonabledoubtbeforeanaccusedcanbeconvictedofacrime.31

However,intheapplicationandinterpretationofthelaw,mattersarenotalwaysresolvedinfavouroftheaccused.Infact,ithasbeensaidthatcaselawdemonstrates

20 Most recently, the ISA has been used againstmembers of the Jemaah Islamiyah, aMost recently, the ISA has been used againstmembers of the Jemaah Islamiyah, aterrorist group linked toAl-Qaeda. ‘Singapore detains another Jemaah Islamiyamember’Channel News Asia(12November2005),online:<http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/178107/1/.html>.21 Onereasonfordetentionwithouttrialinsecuritycasesisthatwitnessescanbethreatened,Onereasonfordetentionwithouttrialinsecuritycasesisthatwitnessescanbethreatened,andthus,testimonyincourtisdifficultorevenimpossibletoobtain.SeeSing., Parliamentary Debates,vol.19,col.1431atcol.1457(29July1987).22 Constitution of Singapore,supranote18,art.151(1)(a).23 Ibid.,arts.151(1)(b),151(2),151(4).24 Ibid.,art.151(4).25 (Cap.97,1997Rev.Ed.Sing.).(Cap.97,1997Rev.Ed.Sing.).26 Constitution of Singapore,supranote18,art.9(1).27 Ibid.,art.12.28 Ibid.,art.9(3);andCPC, supra note16,s.195.Incapitalcases,theaccusedisprovidedwithtwostate-assistedcounselasamatterofpolicyiftheaccusedisunabletoaffordlegalrepresentation:Chan,“TheSingaporeModel”,supranote7at478.29 Constitution of Singapore,supranote18,art.9(4).30 Evidence Act,supranote25,s.103,illustration(a).31 Took Leng How v. Public Prosecutor,[2006]2Sing.L.R.(R)70(C.A.)atpara.27.

thejudiciary’sgeneral lackofsupportforadueprocessmodelwhichisencrustedwithtoomanytechnicalproceduralorevidentiaryrulesthatcouldresultintoomanyfactuallyguiltypersonsbeingacquitted.32

2. Attitudes of the Players in the Judicial System

Toitscredit,thejudiciaryhasexpresslypointedtotheriskofwrongfulconvictionsinitsjudgementsandhasinterpretedbroadlegislationwithcaution,impliedlytakingthis risk seriously. Counsel and other members of the legal community are alsoeducatedviaforumsandseminarsofthedangerofwrongfulconvictions.

There has been recognition of the risks of wrongful convictions in the HighCourt,33andalsointhelowercourtsasevincedbyPublic Prosecutor v. Yeow Beng Chye.34Inthatcase,inthecontextofeyewitnessidentificationandonthequestionofwhether corroborationwas required to justify the conviction, the judge stated:“[as]TheHonourabletheChiefJusticehassaidinmanyprecedents,wheneverthecourthas toeitheracquitorconvict theaccusedbasedonasingleallegationbyacomplainant,theheightenedriskofmiscarriageofjusticemustnecessarilypromptthecourttobeextremelycautious.”35

Withregard to the interpretationof legislation, thecourtshave tendedtorejectformalisminfavourofamorebalancedapproach, takingintoaccountthespecificcircumstancesof eachcase.36 InNg Yang Sek v. Public Prosecutor,37 theCourtofAppeal overturned the lower court’s conviction of drug trafficking despite thepresumptionoftraffickingworkingagainsthim.AlthoughNgwasfoundwithalargequantity of opium and distributed them to other people in the form ofmedicatedplasters,hedidsoforthebona fidetreatmentofmedicalconditions.Thisjudgementexemplifiesthealleviationoftheharshnessofdrugtraffickinglegislation.

Addressingmembersofthelegalcommunity,theformerChiefJusticesaidthat“[the]risksof the innocentbeingconvicted…mustbeas lowashumanfallibilityallows.”38This attitude is also reflected in the forums and seminars conductedbythe Committee on Legal Education and Studies. In one forum entitled “CriminalAdvocacy–PerspectivefromtheBench”,SeniorCounselAmarjeetSinghsaidthat“Criminallawadvocacy’sultimatefunctionistopreventamiscarriageofjustice.”39Hereferredtothewell-knowncasesofwrongfulconvictionsintheUKandanumber

32 Chan,“RethinkingtheCriminalJusticeSystem”,Chan,“RethinkingtheCriminalJusticeSystem”,Chan,“RethinkingtheCriminalJusticeSystem”,supranote8at51–52.33 Seee.g.Seee.g.Kwan Peng Hong v. Public Prosecutor,[2000]2Sing.L.R.(R)824(H.C.)atpara.29.34 [2003]SGDC44.[2003]SGDC44.35 Ibid.atpara.98.36 AmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy–Perspective fromtheBench”AmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy–Perspective fromtheBench”Singapore Law Gazette(May2003)[AmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy”].37 [1997]2Sing.L.R.(R)816(C.A.).[1997]2Sing.L.R.(R)816(C.A.).38 Yong Pung How, (Subordinate CourtsWork Plan Seminar KeynoteAddress, 1998)Yong Pung How, (Subordinate CourtsWork Plan Seminar KeynoteAddress, 1998)quotedinSing.,Parliamentary Debates,vol.69,col.75at102(1June1998)[1 June 1998 Parliamentary Debates].39 AmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy”,AmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy”,supranote36.



ofidentifiableproblemareasthatledtotheseconvictions.Thus,theplayersintheSingaporejudicialsystemseemawareoftheproblemofwrongfulconvictions.

However,therearearguablysomeinstanceswherethejudiciarydoesnotgofarenough in preferring the due processmodel, as it ought to do as the guardian ofthe innocent.40This canbe seen in the constitutional interpretationof the right tolifeandliberty,whichmaynotbedeprived“saveinaccordancewithlaw”.InTeo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs,41 the court took apositivistic approach tothequestionofwhetheranamendmenttosection8oftheISAwasunconstitutional.ThisamendmentremovedjudicialreviewofdecisionsmadeundertheISAsaveforgroundsofproceduralimpropriety.ThecourtdeemedtheamendmentconstitutionalbecauseParliamentwasdoingnomorethanenactingtheruleoflawrelatingtothelawapplicabletojudicialreview.42Thisreasoningignorestheriskofpunishingtheinnocent and implies that the courts will not question Parliamentary law-makingas long as it is procedurally sound.43 Such constitutional interpretation favouringefficientgovernment44 carries into the interpretationof statutorydueprocess rulesthatwillbediscussedbelow.

3. Government Policy

Takingastepback,theseattitudesareinfluencedbythesocialpolicyoftheGovernment.Crime control has always been a high priority on the Singapore government’sagenda.45 Numerous agencies, including the National Crime Prevention Council,the police andGovernment at grassroots levels,work together to raise awarenessofcrimepreventionmeasures,andtocorrectbehaviourinyouths,engagingthemin

40 Viewing the criminal justice system as two pronged – bringing to justice the guiltyViewing the criminal justice system as two pronged – bringing to justice the guiltyand protecting the innocent – the courts ought to take extra care about using the tools ofdue process to preventwrongful convictionsThis is because in the scheme of separationofpowers,thejudiciaryisconceivedasacheckonthelegislatureandexecutive.See:ThioLi-ann,“TheConstitutionalFrameworkofPowers”inKevinTan,ed.,The Singapore Legal System,2nded.(Singapore:CoronetBooks,1999)67at93.41 [1989]2M.L.J.449(Sing.C.A.)[[1989]2M.L.J.449(Sing.C.A.)[Teo Soh Lung].42 See also See alsoSee also Jabar v. Public Prosecutor, [1995] 1 Sing. L.R.(R) 326 (C.A.) at para. 53(“Anylawwhichprovidesforthedeprivationofaperson’slifeorpersonalliberty,isvalidandbindingsolongasitisvalidlypassedbyParliament.”)43 TheendresultofTheendresultofTheendresultofTeo Soh LungwasthelegislativeoverrulingofChng Suan Tze.44 ContraTan Chor Jin v. Public Prosecutor,[2008]4Sing.L.R.(R)306(C.A.)[Tan Chor Jin]atparas.49–73wheretheCourtofAppealheldthattheconstitutionalrighttocounselforanaccusedcanbe‘validlydenied’undercertaincircumstances.Briefly,thatcaseinvolvedanaccusedwhohadbeenconvictedofanarmsoffence.Onappeal,hearguedthatthetrialjudgehadunfairlydeniedhimaccesstoalawyerjustbeforeclosingsubmissionsweredue,notwithstandingthefactthattheaccusedhaddismissedhispreviouslawyerandconfirmedatvariousstagesintheproceedingsthathedidnotneedalawyer.TheCourtofAppealruledthatonacloseperusalofthefactsofthecase,therewasnoprejudicesufferedbytheaccused,andultimatelyhewassolelyresponsiblefordeprivinghimselfofalawyer.45 Chan,“TheSingaporeModel”,Chan,“TheSingaporeModel”, supranote7at438.

constructiveactivities.46Theresultisthatlessthanonecrimeayearisreportedforevery100people.47

Thus, government policy shifts the focus from protecting the innocent fromconvictiontomaintainingpublicorderandsafetythroughefficientandeffectivecrimepreventionandcontrol.48Coupledwiththelackofempiricalevidenceofwrongfulconvictions, there is a danger of becoming complacent. Hence, it is especiallyimportanttobearinmindtheriskofwrongfulconvictionwhenthereappearstobenone,becausepublicconfidencewillbegreatlyshakenshouldtheGovernmentbeseentofailthecitizen.49

B. Role of the Police

In a crime control model, much trust is placed in the efficiency of the police indiscovering the facts of the crime and in determining early on probable guiltor innocence.50 This gives rise to a factual “presumption of guilt”, i.e. once adeterminationismadethatthereisenoughevidenceofguilt(whichmaytakeplaceasearlyasthetimeofarrest),thesuspectistreatedas“probablyguilty”.51Thisisakintowhat thewrongful conviction literature terms “tunnel vision”.52Besides tunnelvision,improperinvestigationtechniquesandpolicemisconductcanleadandhaveledtowrongfulconvictions.53However,Singapore’ssmallsize—suchthatanyminorwrongdoing ismagnified in the eyesof thepublic—combinedwith agovernmentthatupholdsstrictvaluesandstandards,helpskeeppolicemisconductincheck.Tightcontrolcanbemaintainedovereachdivisionandmemberinthepoliceforcebecauseofitsrelativesmallness.

46 ‘Singaporesharessecretsoflowcrimerateswithinternationalexperts’‘Singaporesharessecretsoflowcrimerateswithinternationalexperts’Channel News Asia (22November2004),online:<http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/118429/1/.html>.47 Ibid.48 Wong Siew Ying, ‘Singapore has fewer policemen per 100,000 people but lower Wong Siew Ying, ‘Singapore has fewer policemen per 100,000 people but lowercrime rate than some cities’ Channel News Asia (3 August 2008), online: <http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/364655/1/.html>.49 Ascanbe seen from the instanceofallegedpoliceabuse sufferedbyaThaiworkerAscanbe seen from the instanceofallegedpoliceabuse sufferedbyaThaiworkerchargedwithmurderaswellasthefalseconfessionextractedfromSamatDupree;Seetextaccompanyingnote122.50 Chan,“TheSingaporeModel”,Chan,“TheSingaporeModel”,supranote7at441.51 Ibid.52 SeeHon. FredKaufman, SeeHon. FredKaufman,Report of the Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Toronto:OntarioMinistry of theAttorneyGeneral, 1998) at 1136 [Kaufman Report](“[T]unnelvisionmeansthesingle-mindedandoverlynarrowfocusonaparticularinvestigativeorprosecutorialtheory,soastounreasonablycolourtheevaluationofinformationreceivedandone’sconductinresponsetothatinformation”).53 DianneMartin,“ThePoliceRoleinWrongfulConvictions:AnInternationalComparativeDianneMartin,“ThePoliceRoleinWrongfulConvictions:AnInternationalComparativeDianneMartin,“ThePoliceRoleinWrongfulConvictions:AnInternationalComparativeStudy”inWestervelt&Humphrey,supranote3,77at88–90[Martin,“ThePoliceRole”].



1. Tunnel Vision

Tunnelvision isaproductof thepressure toconvictaswellas thewillingness toprosecuteandconvictsomeonewithoutreallyscrutinisingevidence.54InSingapore,tunnel vision is not an apparent problem probably because of good investigativetechnique and themindset of the police.The police in Singapore see themselvesasservantsof thecommunity,helpingtoensureSingapore’ssecurity,survivalandsuccess.55Admittedly,servicetothecommunitymayinvolvesacrificingtheinnocentforthegreatergood,alsoknownas“noblecausecorruption”.56Fortunatelyfortheinnocent,thisformofcorruption,likeallotherformsofcorruptioninSingapore,hasbeenseverelycondemnedinParliament,57bytheInternalInvestigationSection(IIS)ofthePoliceHeadquarters,58thepress59andthepublic.60Indeed,thecorevaluesoftheSingaporePoliceForceare“courage,fairness,integrityandloyalty”.61Hence,theemphasisisnotonsecuringaconvictionbutinconductingathoroughandtruthfulinvestigation,resultingintheviewthatthepolicedoadisservicetothepubliciftheywronglychargetheinnocentwithacrime.62

2. Interrogation and Investigation

Fromadueprocessperspective,SingaporeislackingbecauseithasnolegislativeCodeofPracticeputtinginplaceguidelinesforinvestigationprocedureortheinterrogationofsuspectsoraccusedpersonsinSingapore.63TheKaufman Report,producedaftera commissionof inquiry inTorontowasheld concerning thewrongful conviction

54 Ibid.at79.55 See“SingaporePoliceForce–AboutUs”,online:SingaporePoliceForce:<http://www.See“SingaporePoliceForce–AboutUs”,online:SingaporePoliceForce:<http://www.SingaporePoliceForce–AboutUs”,online:SingaporePoliceForce:<http://www.spf.gov.sg/abtspf/shared_vision.htm>.56 Martin,“ThePoliceRole”,Martin,“ThePoliceRole”,supranote53at79.57 1 June 1998 Parliamentary Debates,supranote38,atcol.94.58 This body receives complaints against the police and disciplines officers who, for This body receives complaints against the police and disciplines officers who, forinstance,exerciseinsufficientdiligenceinpursuingalead,leadingtotheprosecutionofacasethatislaterdropped:ibid.atcol.93.59 “Beware,whatlookssuspiciousmaywellbeinnocent”“Beware,whatlookssuspiciousmaywellbeinnocent”The Straits Times (9April1995).60 Bywritingintothenewspaperforum,e.g.“SomequestionsaboutSamat’sCase”Bywritingintothenewspaperforum,e.g.“SomequestionsaboutSamat’sCase”The Straits Times (24March1993),orviaquestionsandconcernsraisedtoministerswhointurngivevoicetopublicopinioninparliament.61 Especially‘integrity’,whichisexplained:“WeneverforsakeourethicsinordertoattainEspecially‘integrity’,whichisexplained:“Weneverforsakeourethicsinordertoattainourobjectives.Ouractionsareguidedbyourprinciple,notexpediency.”See“DepartmentValues of the Singapore Police Force”, online: Singapore Police Force <http://www.spf.govsg/about_spf/ethos/about_ethos_core.htm>,accessed4June2009.62 This has led to an opinion being formed that the police only charge the guiltywithThis has led to an opinion being formed that the police only charge the guiltywithcrimes:1 June 1998 Parliamentary Debates,supranote38,atcol.87–88.63 SeeMichaelHwang,(AddressbythePresidentoftheLawSocietyattheOpeningofSeeMichaelHwang,(AddressbythePresidentoftheLawSocietyattheOpeningoftheLegalYear2008,5January2008),online:LawNet<http://www.lawnet.com.sg/legal/ln2/sglaw/html/OpeningSpeeches2008_SgLawWatch.html>(callingfor“legislation(oratleastaprotocol)…toprescribehow[witness]statementsarerecorded[bythepolice]andwhencounselcanhaveaccesstotheirclients”).

ofamanforrapeandmurderofhisnine-yearoldneighbour, recommended, inter alia,thesettingofminimumstandardsforthepolicewithrespecttotheconductofcriminalinvestigations.64Singaporealsolacksaprocedureofvideo-tapinginterviewsandinterrogations.65Althoughthesuspecttheoreticallyhasaconstitutionalrighttoberepresentedbycounselofhischoice,inpractice,asuspectisrarelyrepresentedatthepolicestation.66InJasbir Singh v. Public Prosecutor,theCourtofAppealheldthattheaccused’srighttocounseldidnotarise“immediately”followingarrest,but“withinareasonabletime”;inthecourt’sview,twoweekswasareasonabletimeinthatcase.67Thesefactorshaveperhapscontributedtothenotinfrequentallegationsbyaccusedpersonsthattheirstatementstothepolicehadnotbeengivenvoluntarilyorthattheyhadbeenabusivelytreatedinthecourseofinvestigationandinterrogation.68

However,thereareprovisionsintheCPCthatlimittheexerciseofpolicepowersinrespectofinvestigations.Forexample,sections35and36(1)oftheCPCstatethatregardingarrestsmadewithoutawarrant,thepoliceareobligedtotakethesuspectbeforeamagistratewithoutunnecessarydelayandwithin48hoursofthearrest.Thisensuresthattheaccusedhasaccesstothecourtsduringtheinvestigationprocess.TheMinisterofLawhasalsoclarifiedthat“inmostcases”thepoliceinfactcompletetheinvestigationswithin 48 hours.69Additionally, section 122(5) of theCPC governstheadmissibilityofstatementstothepolicemadebytheaccused–suchstatementsareinadmissibleifitappearstothecourtthattheywerecausedby“anyinducement,threatorpromise”.70Thisruleindirectlychecksthemannerinwhichpoliceobtainstatementsfromtheaccused,especiallywhereit isfortheprosecutiontoestablishbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthestatementwasvoluntarilymade.71

In addition to theCPC, the police inSingapore are guided by the judgementsof the courts, checkedby internal practices, aswell as disciplinedby the IIS, thethreatof civil andcriminal suit, andpublic censure.Policepractice ismaintained

64 Kaufman Report,supranote52at1194.65 ThismeasurewassuggestedinParliamentanumberoftimes,butwaseachtimerejectedThismeasurewassuggestedinParliamentanumberoftimes,butwaseachtimerejectedasbeingunnecessaryandoflimitedeffectivenessbecausetheaccusedcouldarguethatthevideotapesdidnotrecordtheabusehewassubjectedto.Seealso1 June 1998 Parliamentary Debates,supranote38,atcol.99;andSing.,Parliamentary Debates,vol.63col.377at381(25August1994).66 K.S. Rajah, ‘Discovery and Fair Trials’ K.S. Rajah, ‘Discovery and Fair Trials’ Singapore Law Gazette (November 2003)[Rajah,“DiscoveryandFairTrials”].67 [1994]1Sing.L.R.(R)782(C.A.)atparas.47–49[[1994]1Sing.L.R.(R)782(C.A.)atparas.47–49[Jasbir Singh].SeealsoTan Chor Jin,supranote44.68 Seee.g.Seee.g.Seee.g.Public Prosecutor v. Ismil bin Kadar,2009SGHC84[Ismil]wherebothaccusedpersonsarguedthattheywerethreatenedbypoliceinvestigatorsandhadbeensubjectedtophysicaldiscomfort,whetherbecausetheyhadmealslateorwerecold;andLim Thian Lai v. Public Prosecutor,[2006]1Sing.L.R.(R)319(C.A.)[Lim Thian Lai]wheretheaccusedallegedthat, inter alia,hehadfeltthreatenedbypoliceinthecourseofinterrogationwhenhewastoldrepeatedlythathewasonthe18thfloorofthepolicecomplex,makinghimfearthathecouldbethrowndownorbeatenupwithoutanyonehearinghiscries.69 Sing.,Sing.,Parliamentary Debates,vol.77,col.1033(10March2004).70 SeealsoSeealsoalsoCPC,supranote16,s.122(7).71 SeeSee Ismail bin Abdul Rahman v. Public Prosecutor,[2004]2Sing.L.R.(R)74(C.A.)atpara.33.



atalevelthatisacceptabletothejudiciarybytheirinterpretationofrulesthatdealwiththeadmissibilityofstatementsandtherequirementofcorroborationincertaincircumstances. For instance, it has been held that conduct such as saying to theaccused“youhadbettertellthetruth”oranyequivalentamountstoathreatrenderingastatementinadmissible.72However,inLim Thian Lai v. Public Prosecutor, theCourtofAppealcautiouslystatedthattheimportofsuchwordsmustbeevaluatedinthecontextoftheindividualcase,accordingtoapartlyobjectiveandpartlysubjectivetest, rather than determined based on precedent.73 The courts have also acceptedthat statementsmay be inadmissible not only because of the existence of threats,inducementsorpromises,butalso if therehasbeenoppression.74ThisdoctrineofoppressionwasdevelopedinEnglandtodealwithsubtlerandlessdirectinfluencesnot amounting to threats, inducements or promises.75 InPublic Prosecutor v. Lim Kian Tat,76thecourtheldthatastatementtakenafteran18-hourinterrogation,withonlyanhour’sbreakgiventotheaccused,andonthefourthnightinarowinwhichtheaccuseddidnothaveanyadequatesleep,wasobtainedbyoppression.Pertainingto corroboration, inKhoo Kwoon Hain v. Public Prosecutor,77 the court approvedSpenser-WilkinsonJ’sstatementinPublic Prosecutor v. Mardaithat:

Whilstthereisnoruleoflawinthiscountrythatinsexualoffencestheevidenceofthecomplainantmustbecorroborated;neverthelessitappearstome,asamatterofcommonsense,tobeunsafetoconvictincasesofthiskindunlesseithertheevidenceofthecomplainantisunusuallyconvincingorthereissomecorroborationofthecomplainant’sstory.78

In XP v. Public Prosecutor, the court clarified that this general requirementforcorroboration isnot restricted toclosedcategoriesofwitnessessuchassexualcomplainants, butmay extend to all caseswhere thewitnesses are of potentiallydoubtfulcredibility.79 Thesecasesserveasunofficial‘guidelines’thatthepoliceabidebyintheirevidence-gathering.80

Certainly,thestrengthofjudicialguidelinesasacheckwilldependonhowthejudiciarybalancestheneedtogivethepolicesomeleewayininvestigationtosecure

72 Seee.g.Seee.g.Seee.g.Lim Kim Tjok v. Public Prosecutor,[1977–1978]Sing.L.R.(R)403(H.C.).73 Lim Thian Lai,supranote68atpara.18.74 Seee.g.Seee.g.Seow Choon Meng v. Public Prosecutor,[1994]2Sing.L.R.(R)338(C.A.)atparas.33–34.75 SeeSeeR v. Priestly (1967),51Cr.App.R.1,whereSachsJ.described ‘oppression’as‘somethingwhich tends to say, and has sapped, that free will whichmust exist before aconfessionisvoluntary…Whetherornotthereisoppressioninanindividualcasedependsuponmanyelements…Theyincludesuchthingsasthelengthoftimeinterveningbetweenperiodsofquestioning,whethertheaccusedpersonhadbeengivenproperrefreshmentornot,andthecharacteristicsofthepersonwhomadethestatement’.76 [1990]1Sing.L.R.(R)273(H.C.)atpara.29.[1990]1Sing.L.R.(R)273(H.C.)atpara.29.77 [1995]2Sing.L.R.(R)591(H.C.)atpara.44.[1995]2Sing.L.R.(R)591(H.C.)atpara.44.[1995]2Sing.L.R.(R)591(H.C.)atpara.44.44.78 [1950]M.L.J.33.[1950]M.L.J.33.79 XP v. Public Prosecutor,supranote14atparas.32–33.80 1 June 1998 Parliamentary Debates,supranote38,atcol.107–08.

convictions,againsttheneedtoprotecttherightsoftheaccusedsuchthattheinnocentmaybeprotected.81AscanbeseenfromJasbir Singh andLim Thian Lai,thejudiciarytendstostrikesuchabalanceinfavouroftheformer–preferringtotakeapragmaticapproach rather than focusing on due process.This tendency can also be seen inPublic Prosecutor v. Leong Siew Chor,82where, although the trial judgeheld thatsection121(3)oftheCPChadbeentechnicallybreachedbecausethepoliceofficerdidnotreadtheaccused’sstatementbacktohimasrequired,therewasnoproceduralimpropriety thatrenderedthestatement inadmissible.Thelegislative intentbehindtheprovisionhadbeenfulfilled–theaccused,whowasliterateandhadnodifficultyreadingthestatement,waslefttoreadthestatementthroughhimself.

Poormanagementhasalsobeenidentifiedasoneofthereasonsimpedingprogressinimprovinginvestigativeperformanceofmid-rankofficers.83InSingapore,however,theobsessionwithgoodmanagementstrategyandpracticeservestheinnocentwell.The Singapore Police Force has received many accolades for its organisationalexcellence, includingtheSingaporeQualityAwardwithSpecialCommendationin2007.84Itsinvestigationprocesscontainsseverallayersofscrutinyandsupervision.Eachday,ateverypolicedivision,adutySeniorInvestigationOfficerchecksthecasesreportedtoseehowtheyarehandled.85TheChiefInvestigationOfficer(CIO)willalsocheckonallpolicereportslodgedandtheactionstakentodealwiththem.86MoredifficultcasesarereviewedinaMorningPanelchairedbytheHeadofInvestigation(HI).87Thereafter, theCIOandHIwill continue tomonitor the cases that requirefurtherinvestigation.88

TheCriminalInvestigationDepartment(CID)handlesthemorecomplexcases,andtheprocessofclosesupervisionisfurtherenhancedbycaseconferencing.89CIDhasalsostrengtheneditsinvestigativecapabilitybyimplementingteaminvestigation.This teamsystem removes investigationwork from theprovinceof thedetectivesand introduces objectivity togetherwith varied expertise by involving experts oninterviews,intelligence,forensicsandtechnology.Forthemostseriouscases,theAGisconsulted.90

81 Supranote74.82 [2006]3Sing.L.R.(R)290(H.C.),affirmedin[2006]SGCA38.[2006]3Sing.L.R.(R)290(H.C.),affirmedin[2006]SGCA38.83 SeeJohnArnoldEpp,“PenetratingPoliceInvestigativePracticePost-SeeJohnArnoldEpp,“PenetratingPoliceInvestigativePracticePost-Morin”(1997)31U.B.C.L.Rev.95[Epp,“PenetratingPoliceInvestigativePractice”]at111.84 The assessment criteria for the Singapore Quality Award includes examining an The assessment criteria for the Singapore Quality Award includes examining anorganisation’s leadership, planning processes, management of information, developmentof people, attainment of objectives, relationship with customers and performance. See“AwardCriteria”,online:SPRINGSingapore<http://www.spring.gov.sg/Content/WebPage.aspx?id=0e082fc7-f1cf-464f-9857-3e692dfe69be>.85 1 June 1998 Parliamentary Debates,supranote38,atcol.96.86 Ibid.87 Ibid.88 ThisissimilartothecommandtriangleofthecasemanagementsystemthattheDurhamThisissimilartothecommandtriangleofthecasemanagementsystemthattheDurhamRegionalPoliceServicenowemploys inresponse to thewrongfulconvictionofGuyPaulMorininCanada;seeKaufmanReport, supranote52at1121–23.89 1 June 1998 Parliamentary Debates,supranote38,atcol.96.90 Ibid.



Disciplinary action against police officers is also a very real threat. The fearof losing public confidence is very strong, translating into strong condemnationof investigative failures. Civil actions of malicious prosecution and wrongfulimprisonmentareavailableaswell.Althoughitisunknownifanysuchactionshavebeen successfullybrought, theyarenotnecessarily an ineffectivecheckonpolicemismanagement.The lackof successful actions could equallybe testament to thesoundinvestigativetechniquesofthepoliceforce.Indeed,fromthecaselaw,itappearsthatthemostseriouscriticismsofthepoliceforcerelatetoalackofco-ordinationamongstdifferentpolicedivisionsordifferentenforcementagenciescausingadelayinchargingorprosecuting theaccused91or thebringingofanunsuitablecharge,92ratherthansubjectingafactuallyinnocentpersontoprosecution.

3. Police Misconduct

Consistentwiththecrimecontrolmodel,policemisconductistreatedveryseriouslyinSingapore.SeniorParliamentarySecretaryforHomeAffairsHoPengKeeoncestated that:“Policeabusemustneverbecondoned. Ifanyofficer is foundtohaveabused his powers in anyway, he faces disciplinary action and even prosecutionwhereappropriate...theMinistryofHomeAffairswillnotallowanyblacksheeptotarnishtheimageandintegrityofanyofitsdepartments,especiallythepolice.”93

This attitude towards police misconduct, together with the strong disciplinaryarmoftheIIStakeSingaporeawayfromthe“copculture”problemidentifiedintheliterature,wherecopscoverupforeachother,andthepoordisciplineofthepoliceisnotmadepublicandgivenemphasis.94In1994,therewere94complaintsofpoliceabuseonsuspects,outofwhichonly14werereportedassubstantiatedbytheIIS.95Inthese14cases,therewere16errantofficers:onewasprosecutedandchargedincourtandtherestweredepartmentallydealtwith(theschemefordiscipliningerrantpoliceofficers issetout intheSingapore Police Force Act96andRegulations).97In1999,themostrecentyearinwhichstatisticsareavailable,56complaintswerereceived,ofwhich7weresubstantiated.98Thisreflectsaconsistentlylowrateofpoliceabuse.

91 Seee.g. Seee.g.Seee.g.Chan Kum Hong Randy v. Public Prosecutor, [2008]2Sing.L.R.(R)1019(H.C.);andChua Siew Lin v. Public Prosecutor,[2004]4Sing.L.R.(R)497(H.C.).92 Seee.g. Seee.g.Seee.g.Chong Pit Khai v. Public Prosecutor, [2009]SGHC69,although thecourtdid not reverse the conviction on the charge because the accused hadpleadedguilty to itvoluntarilyafterhavingampletimetothinkaboutwhethertodefendthecharge.93 “Noblacksheepallowedtotarnishintegrityofministry”“Noblacksheepallowedtotarnishintegrityofministry”The Straits Times(26August1994).94 Epp,“PenetratingPoliceInvestigativePractice”,Epp,“PenetratingPoliceInvestigativePractice”,supranote83at107.95 Bhaskaran s/o Sivasamy, “The CriminalAppellate System in Singapore” (1995) 16 Bhaskaran s/o Sivasamy, “The CriminalAppellate System in Singapore” (1995) 16Sing.L.Rev.319[Sivasamy,“TheCriminalAppellateSysteminSingapore”]at331.96 (Cap.235,2006Rev.Ed.Sing.),ss.28–43readwiththeSchedule.(Cap.235,2006Rev.Ed.Sing.),ss.28–43readwiththeSchedule.97 1 June 1998 Parliamentary Debates,supranote38,atcol.383.98 USDepartmentofState,“Singapore:CountryReportsonHumanRightsPractices2001”USDepartmentofState,“Singapore:CountryReportsonHumanRightsPractices2001”(4March2002),online:<http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eap/8375.htm>.

4. Training

In 2000, the Ministry of HomeAffairs launched the Police School of CriminalInvestigation.99Thisschooltakesinvestigationfrombeingonesubjectamongmanyandmakesitaspecialisation.Itwillgive“investigatorsmorein-depthknowledgeand[train]themto[attain]worldstandards”.100Thiswillsurelycontributetowardssolvingtheproblemofpoliceinvestigatorsfallingbackonstereotypesbecausetheydonothavetheskillstouncoverinitiallyunknownoffenders.101Further,in2006,thePoliceAcademymovedtolargerandbetterfacilitiesatthenewHomeTeamAcademy.102The Home TeamAcademy has enhanced training content and methodology, andutilisestoolssuchasAfterActionReviewtobetterequippoliceofficerstodischargetheirduties.ItalsocontainsaKnowledgeDepositoryBranchtofacilitatethetransferofskillsandexperiencefromoldertoyoungerofficers.

C. Role of Counsel, Judge and Jury

Oneofthecentraltenetsofthecriminalprocessisallowinganaccusedchargedwithacriminaloffenceanopencourttrial.Althoughtheoreticallyawardingdueprocessprotection,thevalueofatrialinsafeguardingtheinnocentdependsheavilyontheinterpretationandapplicationofthelawsbythejudge.Intheadversarialmodel,theeffectivenessofcounselalsoaffectsthesuccessfulprotectionoftheinnocent.

1. Judge Versus Jury

ThejurysystemwasabolishedinSingaporein1970foranumberofreasons.Briefly,these are that the jurymay be swayed by flamboyant counsel,103 that justice hadbeenthwartedbytechnicalitiesrelatedtotheconductorinstructionofthejury,thatexpediency required it, and that thepublicdidnot register strongobjection to theremovaloftheinstitutionofthejury.104Thesereasonscontainamixofjustificationsfromboththecrimecontrolanddueprocessmodel.

With respect to preventingwrongful convictions, removing the jurymay be apositivecontribution.First,ithasbeenopinedthatjurorshaveapredispositiontoview

99 See Karamjit Kaur, “Cybercrime surges in first 6 months” The Straits Times (3 See Karamjit Kaur, “Cybercrime surges in first 6 months” The Straits Times (3September2000).100 “TheHomeTeam2001FlagshipWorkshopattheSingaporeInternationalConvention“TheHomeTeam2001FlagshipWorkshopattheSingaporeInternationalConventionandExhibitionCentre-ClosingAddressbyMrWongKanSeng,MinisterforHomeAffairs,3March01”(3March2001),online:MinistryofHomeAffairsSingapore<http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=NzE%3d-niOr2TblqHU%3d>atpara.18.101 Martin,“ThePoliceRole”,Martin,“ThePoliceRole”,ThePoliceRole”,supranote53at91.102 Sing.,Sing.,Parliamentary Debates,vol.81,col.676(2March2006).103 Andrew Phang, “JuryTrial in Singapore andMalaysia:TheUnmaking of a LegalAndrew Phang, “JuryTrial in Singapore andMalaysia:TheUnmaking of a LegalInstitution”(1983)25Mal.L.R.50[Phang,“JuryTrialinSingaporeandMalaysia”]at55.104 Ibid.at54–55.



theaccusedasguilty.105Theyalso frequentlymisunderstandbasic legal standards,suchas“beyond reasonabledoubt”.106 Indeedoneoft-notedproblem is that jurorstendtogivemoreweighttosuspectevidencethantheyshouldbecauseitiscounter-intuitivetodisbelieveaconfessionoraconfidenteyewitness,especiallywithoutthebenefitofexpertevidence.107

Perhaps the stronger reason for the removal of the jury in Singaporewas thattheywerelettingtheguiltygofreeratherthanthattheyconvictedtheinnocent.Thiswasespeciallysoincapitalcases,wherethemandatorydeathsentenceresultedinthe jurynotconvicting.108Whileprobably lesseasily swayedby thehistrionicsofcounsel, judgesaresubject to thesamemisconceptionsas the jurywithrespect tosuspectevidence.Somemaybetooconfidentintheirabilitytodistinguishthetruthfromtheliesbasedontheirtrainingandexperience109–thiscouldleadthemtobelessreceptivetowardspsychologicalstudiesandtoplacetoomuchemphasisonthedemeanour ofwitnesses.110 Some form of judicial trainingwould be beneficial tocreateawarenessamongstthejudiciaryastothecommonpitfallsleadingtowrongfulconvictionsandpracticalstepsthatmaybetakentoavoidsuchpitfalls.

2. The Public Prosecutor

ThePublic Prosecutor (PP) is involved in police investigation as a result of caseconferencing. For more serious cases, theAG is consulted before a decision toprosecute is made.111 At the AG’s Chambers itself, a special Criminal ReviewCommitteecriticallyreviewsandevaluatestheevidenceandlawineverypendingHighCourt trialandappealtodetermineifthechargesorappealshouldbeproceededwithincourt.

Problems may arise, however, if the PP becomes overzealous. The PP is therepresentativeoftheState,whoseinterestinacriminalprosecutionshouldnotbethat

105 SheilaBerry,“‘BadLawyering’:HowDefenseAttorneysHelpConvicttheInnocent”SheilaBerry,“‘BadLawyering’:HowDefenseAttorneysHelpConvicttheInnocent”(2003)30N.Ky.L.Rev.487at488.106 Ibid.at489.107 SeeJillCopeland,“HelpingJurorsRecognisetheFrailtiesofEyewitnessIdentificationSeeJillCopeland,“HelpingJurorsRecognisetheFrailtiesofEyewitnessIdentificationEvidence” (2002)46Crim.L.Q.188;andGaryTrotter, “FalseConfessionsandWrongfulConvictions”(2005)35OttawaL.R.179at183.108 Phang,“JuryTrialinSingaporeandMalaysia”,Phang,“JuryTrialinSingaporeandMalaysia”,supranote103at69.109 Seee.g.Seee.g.Wong Kim Poh v. Public Prosecutor,[1992]1Sing.L.R.(R)13(C.A.)atpara.14(“Inacriminaltrialwithoutajury,asinallsuchtrialsinSingapore,thewrongfuladmissionofevidenceofthebadcharacterordispositionoftheaccuseddoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthejudgeorjudgeshavebeenadverselyinfluencedbysuchevidence…judgesaretrainedtoassessevidenceobjectivelyandtosiftthewheatfromthechaff.”)110 ForthedangersoffindingsbasedondemeanourseeDavidIpp,“ProblemswithFact-ForthedangersoffindingsbasedondemeanourseeDavidIpp,“ProblemswithFact-finding”,online:SupremeCourt,NewSouthWales<http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_ipp020906>.111 TheAG is vested with power exercisable at his discretion to institute, conduct or TheAG is vested with power exercisable at his discretion to institute, conduct ordiscontinueanyproceedingsforanyoffence:ConstitutionofSingapore,supranote18,art.35(8).

“itshallwinthecase,butthatjusticeshallbedone”.112Likethejudge,thePPoughttofocusondueprocessinorder toservethecommunity,andnotcrimecontrol.113FormerAGWalterWoonhasstatedthatpublicinterestisthereigningconsiderationwhenitcomestocriminalprosecution,andthatcasesareonlybroughttocourtwherethePPis“convinced‘beyondreasonabledoubt’”ofanoffence.114However,likeadouble-edgedsword, thismayalso lead to thePPbecomingtooanxious tosecurethe convictions of those it views as “guilty in fact”.115Unfortunately, this role ofthePPisnotmanifestedinpracticeandthis isespeciallynoticeableintheareaofdisclosure.InTay Kok Poh Ronnie v. Public Prosecutor,116theprosecutorrefusedtoletthedefenceseethestatementsmadebytheaccusedundersection121oftheCPC(astatementtakenbypoliceofficersinthecourseoftheirinvestigations).Thisisnotauniquesituationandincidentsofreluctancewithregardtodiscoverybeforetrialordisclosureinthecourseoftrialarenumerous.

Fortunately,thissituationhasbeentemperedsomewhatasjudgeshaveintervenedin somecircumstances andheld in favourofdiscovery anddisclosure inorder toensureafair trial.Forexample, in Tay Kok Poh,YongC.J.heldthat therewasnoreasontodenythedefencesightof thesection121statementbecause thedefencewitnesshadfinishedgivingevidenceandtherewasnodangerofthedefencetailoringevidence.Denying the defence the statement thatmay be used to corroborate histestimonywas todeny relevant evidence that couldbepivotal.This “[wouldnot]beconducivetoafairtrial”.117InPublic Prosecutor v. Ng Beng Siang,KanJ.wentevenfurtherandsaid,“whenareasonablerequest[fordiscovery]ismade,itshouldbeconsideredwithanopenmind.Unlesstherearereasonstobelievethatgrantingofarequestwillleadtoabuse,itwouldbeunreasonabletodenyitonthegroundthatitmayleadtoabuse.”118Thus,thecurrentpositionseemstobethatthePPoughttoconsiderreasonablerequestsfordiscoverywithanopenmind.119InOctober2006,theMinistryofLawintroducedaframeworkforpre-trialexchangesofevidenceinrespect of criminal cases,where the prosecutionwould inform the defenceof theprosecution’scaseagainst theaccused, includingprovidinga listofwitnessesandthestatementstheaccusedhasmadetothepolice.120Nevertheless,thisdoesnotseemtohaveaddressedtheconcernsofthecriminalbarandinanaddressattheOpeningoftheLegalYear2008,thePresidentoftheLawSocietyexpressedthatitwouldbe“highlydesirable”tohavea“statutoryframework(oratleastaprotocol)”concerningdiscovery rather thanhaving itdependona judge’sexerciseofdiscretion ineach

112 Berger v. US,295U.S.78(1935).113 SeeRajah,“DiscoveryandFairTrials”,SeeRajah,“DiscoveryandFairTrials”,supranote66.114 LeongWeeKeat, ‘Theywere the longest twoyearsofmy life:FormerAGWalterLeongWeeKeat, ‘Theywere the longest twoyearsofmy life:FormerAGWalterWoon’,Today(13April2010),online:<http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100413-0000105/They-were-the-longest-two-years-of-my-life--Former-AG-Walter-Woon>.115 SeeKCVijayan,‘GovtdefendsA-G’sstandonacquittals;LawMinisterreiteratesthatSeeKCVijayan,‘GovtdefendsA-G’sstandonacquittals;LawMinisterreiteratesthat‘notguiltyinlaw’doesnotmean‘innocent’’,The Straits Times(26August2008).116 [1995]3Sing.L.R.(R)545(H.C.)[[1995]3Sing.L.R.(R)545(H.C.)[Tay Kok Poh].117 Ibid.118 [2003]4Sing.L.R.(R)609(H.C.)atpara.53.[2003]4Sing.L.R.(R)609(H.C.)atpara.53.119 Rajah,“DiscoveryandFairTrials”,Rajah,“DiscoveryandFairTrials”,supranote66.120 Sing.,Sing.,Parliamentary Debates,vol.82,col.2338(2March2007).



individualcasewhenanapplicationismadetocourt.121Further,morecouldbedonetoensurethattheprosecutionalertsthedefencetoexculpatoryevidenceunearthedbythepolice.122

Despite some reluctance to disclose and to allow discovery, the PP has beenwillingtoexerciseitspowertodiscontinueproceedingsincriminalcaseswhenfacedwithneworinsufficientevidence.123ThishappenedinSamatDupree’scasewhentheprosecutordroppedamurderchargeagainstMr.Dupreefollowingthesurfacingofaprobablealibi.124Mr.Dupreehadfalselyconfessedtothepolicethathestruckhisfriendwithanironbarafterhisfriendmadeadvancestohim.125ThisalsohappenedinZainalbinKuning’scase(discussedbelow)wherenewevidencesurfacedtoexoneratetheaccused,counteringtheevidencegivenbyajailhouseinformant.

3. The Defence Inanadversarialsystem,thedefenceiscrucialforthejudgetomakeawell-informeddecisiononthetruth.“Badlawyering”isanimportantcontributingfactortowrongfulconvictions; it is estimated that 23% of wrongful convictions among 70 DNAexonerationsintheUSAhavebeenaresultofbadlawyering.126OnerecentexampleinEnglandisthecaseofAndrewAdamswhowassentencedtolifeimprisonmenton18May1993formurder.In2007,uponareferencebytheCriminalCasesReviewCommission,theEnglishCourtofAppealfoundAdams’convictionunsafebecauseofmistakesmadebyhislegalteam.Hisoriginallawyerspulledouttwoweeksbeforethetrialandtheirreplacementsfailedtouse“cruciallyimportant”evidenceavailableat the timewhichcouldhaveclearedhisnamebecauseof insufficientpreparationtime.127 Bad lawyering is common among indigent accusedwho are incapable ofretaining counsel of their choice. It could also be that although paid and givensufficientresources,thedefencefailsinitsprofessionalduties.128

121 Hwang,Hwang,supranote63.122 The disclosure of exculpatory evidence has been suggested by practitioners in theThe disclosure of exculpatory evidence has been suggested by practitioners in theThe disclosure of exculpatory evidence has been suggested by practitioners in theUSAas oneway inwhich to reducewrongful convictions there. SeeRobertRamsey andJamesFrank,“HowtoReducetheIncidenceofWrongfulConviction:CurrentPerspectivesofCriminal JusticePractitioners” (Paperpresentedat theannualmeetingof theAmericanSocietyOfCriminology,November2007),online:AllAcademic<http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p201512_index.html>.123 Constitution of Singapore,supranote18,art.35(8);CPC,supranote16,s.336(1).124 BenDavidson,“Courtfreesinnocentmanafter21/2years’jail”BenDavidson,“Courtfreesinnocentmanafter21/2years’jail”The Straits Times(18March1993).125 Ibid.126 The Innocence Project, “Causes and Remedies ofWrongful Convictions”, online: The Innocence Project, “Causes and Remedies ofWrongful Convictions”, online:<http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/index.php>.127 R v. Adams,[2007]1Cr.App.R.34.128 SeeDonaldMarshall’scase,wherehighlycompetentdefencecounselwhowerepaidSeeDonaldMarshall’scase,wherehighlycompetentdefencecounselwhowerepaidsubstantialfeesandhadaccesstofunds,failedtointerviewanywitnessesoftheCrown,andfailedtofollowuponevidencethataneyewitnessfortheprosecutionwaslying.Canada,RoyalCommissionontheDonaldMarshall,Jr.,Prosecution,Commissioner’s Report: Findings and

Indigent accused in Singapore may apply to the Criminal LegalAid Scheme(CLAS)pioneeredbytheLawSocietyor,incapitalcases,relyonassignedcounsel.CLASisfundedbydonationsandsupportedbyvolunteerlawyers,whichnumbered334 in July 2008.129The statistics suggest that these lawyers have been effective.Between January andMay of 2008, CLAS succeeded in securing an acquittal orthereductionorwithdrawalofchargesin21outof110caseshandled.130Thisisarateofapproximately19%.Assuming that thepoliceare rightnearlyall the time,thesefiguresprobablyrepresentamajorityoftheinnocentthathavebeenwronglycharged.Althoughtherehavebeencomplaintsofineffectiveassistancebydefencecounsel,thisisnotaprevalentprobleminSingapore.From1September2006to31August2007,theLawSocietyofSingaporereceivedatotalof63complaintsagainstlawyersoutofwhich11wereregardinginadequateprofessionalservices.131Ofthe11casesreceived,sevenwerenotreferredforaninquirybecausethecomplaintsdidnotdiscloseinformationofanybreachofstandardsofadequateprofessionalservice.132Theremainderoffourcases(assumingtheywereallmeritoriouscomplaints)isverylow considering that there are more than 3000 law practitioners in Singapore.133Professional misconduct in the sense of ineffective representation is thereforevirtuallyunheardof.

There are several reasons to explain this phenomena. First, disciplinaryactionagainstlawyersservesadeterrentpurpose.LawyerswhoarefinedmorethanS$1,000orreprimandedformisconductbytheLawSocietyfacehavingtheirnamespublishedintheGovernmentGazetteandpayingforthecostofthepublication.134AndbecauseofSingapore’ssmalllegalcommunity,disciplinaryactionbytheLawSocietyorasanctionby thecourt leavesone’s reputationsobadlybattered that itmightbeimpossibletocontinueinpracticeevenifonehasnotbeenstruckofftherolls.135

AsecondreasonisthatlawyersinSingapore,likethepolice,haveaspecialpublicservicefunction,andhighstandardsareexpectedfrommembersoftheprofession.Defencelawyers,especially,seethemselvesplayinganimportantrole.Onhiscriteriaforpickingclients,SubhasAnandan,aleadingcriminaldefencelawyerinSingaporesaid,“Thesearecomplexcases.Somewouldsay‘nohopers’,butevenpeoplewho

Recommendations,vol.1(NovaScotia:TheCommission,1989),72–76.129 KhushwantSingh,“Needygettingmorelegalaid;of110probonocasesfromJanuaryKhushwantSingh,“Needygettingmorelegalaid;of110probonocasesfromJanuaryKhushwantSingh,“Needygettingmorelegalaid;of110probonocasesfromJanuarytoMay,21resultedinacquittalorlessercharges”The Straits Times(21July2008).130 Ibid.131 LawSocietyofSingaporeAnnualReport2007,online:<http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/LawSocietyofSingaporeAnnualReport2007,online:<http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/publications/pdf/Lawsoc_2007_Annual_Report.pdf>,at88and92.132 Of the four remaining cases, one was successfully mediated, one was pending Of the four remaining cases, one was successfully mediated, one was pendingmediation,onewaspendingaresponsefromtheclientastowhetherhedesiredmediationandonewasadjournedtillaseparatecomplaintofmisconductagainstthatpersonhadbeeninvestigated:ibid.133 Ibid.at30.134 “ErrantLawyersnownamedinGovernmentGazette”“ErrantLawyersnownamedinGovernmentGazette”The Straits Times(20August1995).135 ThedeterrenteffectofcourtsanctionsisdiscussedinTanYockLin,“SentencingforThedeterrenteffectofcourtsanctionsisdiscussedinTanYockLin,“SentencingforLegalProfessionalMisconduct”(2000–01)21Sing.L.Rev.62.



committhemostheinouscrimesmustbegivenanevenbreak.”136

D. Suspect Evidence

Three areas of suspect evidence have been identified in the wrongful convictionliterature: (1) eyewitness identification; (2) jailhouse informants; and (3) falseconfessions. In Singapore, the use of jailhouse informants constitutes less risk ofwrongfulconvictionthaneyewitnessidentificationorfalseconfessions.Intheareasofeyewitnessidentificationandfalseconfessions,legislativeguidelinesarelackingandthesafeguardsaremainlyjudicial.

1. Eyewitness Identification

Inaccurate eyewitness identification is purportedly the greatest contributor towrongfulconvictionsintheUSA.137Similarly,eyewitnessidentificationispotentiallyadangerareainSingaporebecauseofthelackoflegislativeguidelinesregulatingtheconductofline-ups.However,anexistingsafeguardisthenumberofspecificrulesinrecognitionofthefrailtyofeyewitnesstestimony.138

With regard to identification parades, the courts in Singaporewill not tolerateparadeswherethecompositionoffoilsintheline-upisclearlyunfairtotheaccused;139forexample,wherea58-year-oldChinesemanwaslinedupalongsidethreeMalaymen,aSikhmale,aChinesewomanandtwoChineseboysaged10and16.140Whileithasbeenopinedthatthereisanidentifiabletrendofthecourtsbeingmoretolerantofsuchproceduralflaws,141oneought tobear inmind thatproceduralbreaches inidentificationparadeswillonlyaffecttheweightattachedtotheevidence,anddoesnotrenderitautomaticallyinadmissible.142Thus,thejudgeisgivenalotofdiscretioninthisregard.

Anotherproceduralsafeguardisathree-steptestformulatedbasedonR v. Turnbullguidelines drafted to assist a trial judge in directing a jury.143These steps require

136 AlexaOlesen,“Singaporelawyerhappilyrepresentsthievesandeventerrorsuspects-AlexaOlesen,“Singaporelawyerhappilyrepresentsthievesandeventerrorsuspects-butnodissidents,please”Associated Press (2June2002),online:SingaporeWindow<http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020602ap.htm>,accessed4June2009.137 RonaldHuff,AryeRattnerandEdwardSagarin,RonaldHuff,AryeRattnerandEdwardSagarin,Convicted But Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy (California:Sage,1996)at64.138 For a study in theSingapore context, seeLeeDesmond, “Legal andPsychologicalFor a study in theSingapore context, seeLeeDesmond, “Legal andPsychologicalFor a study in theSingapore context, seeLeeDesmond, “Legal andPsychologicalPerceptivenessonEyewitnessTestimony” (2002)22Sing.L.Rev.202 [Lee, “EyewitnessTestimony”].139 Ibid.at229.140 Chan Sin v. Public Prosecutor,[1949]1M.L.J.106.141 Lee,“EyewitnessTestimony”,Lee,“EyewitnessTestimony”,supranote138at230.142 Ong Phee Hoon James v. Public Prosecutor,[2000]2Sing.L.R.(R)196(H.C.)atpara.14.143 Heng Aik Ren Thomas v. Public Prosecutor,[1998]3Sing.L.R.(R)142(C.A.)atparas.33–35.

thejudgetoaskthreequestionsincriminalcaseswitheyewitnessidentification:(1)whetherthecaseagainsttheaccuseddependswhollyorsubstantiallyonthecorrectnessoftheidentificationevidencewhichisallegedbythedefencetobemistaken;iftheanswer is yes, then (2) is the identification evidence of good quality, taking intoaccountthecircumstancesinwhichtheidentificationbythewitnesswasmade;and(3)wherethequalityofevidenceispoor,whetherthereisanyotherevidencewhichgoestosupportthecorrectnessoftheidentification.

Thistestfactorsinmanyoftheelementsidentifiedbypsychologicalstudiesonthe frailtiesofeyewitness identification.Thecourtsalsoappreciate theparamountimportance of the quality, as opposed to the quantity, of eyewitness evidence.144Nevertheless,theTurnbull testisstillinsufficientbecauseitisstructuredsuchthatifonelimbismet,thenthereisnoneedtomoveontothenextlimb.Thus,whereevidenceisfoundtobeofgoodquality,supportingevidenceisnotrequired.Thisisaproblembecausetheapplicationofthesecondlimbofthetestissubjecttosignificantmisconceptions.

Forexample,incasesofoutrageofmodesty,YongC.J.hasheldthat“thevictimbeingonthereceivingendofsuchacrimewouldhavehadthefaceoftheoffenderemblazonedinhermemory”.145Thishas led thecourt tohold thesecondquestionfulfilled.However,ascanbeseenfromJenniferThompson’scase,suchastatementdoes not hold true.146 Thompson was raped in her own apartment at knife-pointandduringherordealshestudiedthedetailsofherrapist’sface,determinedthatifshesurvivedshewouldidentifyhimandsendhimtoprison.SeveraldayslatersheconfidentlyidentifiedRonaldCottonasherassailantandpickedhimagaininaline-up.Shewasabsolutelycertainheattackedher.Basedmainlyonhertestimony,Cottonwassentencedto life imprisonment.Years later,DNAevidenceexoneratedCottonandidentifiedThompson’sassailantasBobbyPoole.WhenthecasewasretriedduetoevidencethatPoolehadbeenbragginginprisonthathewasThompson’srapist,ThompsonlookedatPooleincourtandtestifiedthatshehadneverseenhiminherlife.Similarly,inviolentcasessuchasrioting,theHighCourthasappliedthethree-steptestwhilecommentingthat,“thisbeingaharrowingexperience,itwaslikelytocarvetheappellant’simageindeliblyintothevictim’smind.”147Indeed,researchhasshownthatstressimpairsratherthanfacilitatesmemoryrecall.148

Admittedly, all these instances probably did not lead to awrongful convictionbecausetherewereotherfactorsthatindicatedtheidentificationwascorrectlymade,such as a short length of time between the incident and the identification parade,asubstantiallengthofobservationduringtheincident,andthefactthatthevictim

144 Ang Jwee Herng v. Public Prosecutor,[2001]1Sing.L.R.(R)720(H.C.).145 Public Prosecutor v. L (a minor),[1999]1Sing.L.R.(R)1041(H.C.).146 The Innocence Project, online: <http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/72.php>; The Innocence Project, online: <http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/72.php>;andJenniferThompson,“IwasCertain,butIwasWrong”New York Times(18June2000),online: <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E6DA1631F93BA25755C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1>,accessed4June2009.147 Rajasekaran s/o Armuthelingam v. Public Prosecutor,[2001]SGHC275.148 C.A.Morganetal.,“AccuracyofEyewitnessMemoryforPersonsEncounteredduringC.A.Morganetal.,“AccuracyofEyewitnessMemoryforPersonsEncounteredduringExposuretoHighlyIntenseStress”(2004)27Intl.J.Psychol.&L.265at267.



hadagoodlookattheaccused’sface.Nevertheless,aholisticapproachtakingintoaccountallthefactorsinthelasttwolimbsofthetestoughttobeadoptedbecausethisminimisesthedangerofawrongfulconvictionbasedoninaccurateeyewitnessidentification.Themisconceptionsheldby the judiciaryalsoought tobeclarified.Themost immediate solution is to educate the judgesbasedon thepsychologicalevidenceavailableandtheexperienceinotherjurisdictions.149

2. Jailhouse Informants

AccordingtoSherrin,the“testimonyofjailhouseinformantsmaybeunreliable,informants may be abusive, and accused personsmay be treated unfairly”.150AninstanceofhowthishasledtowrongfulconvictionisthecaseofGuyPaulMorin,wherethetestimonyoftwojailhouseinformantsclaimingthatMorinhadconfessedto one of them in addition to other systemic errors produced a miscarriage ofjustice.151Thereappears tobeno regularpracticeofusing jailhouse informants inSingapore. The evidence rules regarding informant testimony have usually beeninvokedwithregardtothe“agentprovocateur”,amemberofthepolicedepartmentorsomeonerecruitedbythepolice.Inonecase,aninmateinformedoneoffouraccusedchargedwithmurder that the inmate’s friend had told the inmate that hewas theonewhocommittedthecrime.152Theaccusedtoldhislawyerwhothenwrotetotheinvestigatingofficeraboutthisinformation.Unfortunately,theinvestigatingofficerwasremissandfailedtofollowuponthislead.153However,thechargesagainsttheaccusedandhisthreefriendsweresubsequentlydropped,and“thefriend”,Sulaiman,wasfoundguiltyofmurder.154AtSulaiman’strial, thein-custodyinformerdidnottestifyandwasnotpartoftheprosecution’scase.155

Thus, the use of jailhouse informants by the prosecution probably does notcontributetotheriskofwrongfulconvictioninSingapore.

3. False Confessions

ThisisarguablythelargestdangerareainSingaporebecausetherehavebeenrecordedinstancesoffalseconfessionsbeinggiven.Fortunately,thesehavebeendiscoveredin

149 Seee.g.Seee.g.R v. Oickle(2001),147C.C.C.(3d)321,2000SCC38.150 ChristopherSherrin,“JailhouseInformantsintheCanadianCriminalJusticeSystem,ChristopherSherrin,“JailhouseInformantsintheCanadianCriminalJusticeSystem,PartII:OptionsforReform”(1998),40Crim.L.Q.157.151 Kaufman Report,supranote52at556–557.152 Zainal bin Kuning v. Chan Sin Mian Michael,[1996]2Sing.L.R.(R)858(C.A.)atpara.14.153 Theofficerwassuedformaliciousprosecutionandfalsearrest,buttheclaimdidnotTheofficerwassuedformaliciousprosecutionandfalsearrest,buttheclaimdidnotsucceedbecausethecourtheldthattheofficerhadreasonableandprobablecausetoprosecuteandthatthearrestwasbasedoncredibleinformationandreasonablesuspicion.154 Mohd Sulaiman v. Public Prosecutor,[1994]2Sing.L.R.(R)528(C.A.).155 Public Prosecutor v. Mohd Sulaiman bin Samsudin,[1994]2C.L.A.S.News161.

atimelymanner,forexample,SamatDupree’sfalseconfessiontomurder.156However,morecanbedonetoreducethelikelihoodofafalseconfessionbeinggivenandtoclearupmisconceptionsthatthejudgeshavetowardsthemakingoffalseconfessions.Aswith eyewitness identification, it is counter-intuitive to think that the innocentwill confesswithout policemisconduct or coercion. InPublic Prosecutor v. Liew Kim Choo,157YongC.J.said,“asuspectisunlikelytomakeafalseconfessiontothepoliceunlesshewasunderduressorthreat.”Yetpsychologicalevidenceshowsthatfalse confessionsmaybe voluntary, stress-compliant, coerced-compliant, coerced-persuadedandnoncoerced-persuaded.158Askedwhyheconfessedifhefelthewasinnocent,Dupreesaid,“Iwasscared.It’seasyforpeopletoaskwhybutIamtheonewho suffered in theCID.”159Dupree’s confessionmay fallwithin one of thecategoriesidentifiedabove,dependingontheprecisefactualcircumstancesleadingtotheconfessionandhisdisposition.

The impact of a false confession in Singapore is also serious because theconfessionofaco-accusedimplicatingtheaccusedmayalonebesufficienttoconvicttheaccused.160Ifcontradictorytohisownpriorlongstatementtakenbythepolice,anaccused’s testimonyincourtmaybedisregardedinfavourof theformerundersection147oftheEvidence Act;theaccusedmaythenbeconvictedunderthepriorstatement.161

This is, however, not to say that the courts should unquestioningly accept thepsychological opinion tendered by the defence, which may be problematic. InIsmil,thefirstaccusedunsuccessfullyarguedthathehadmadeacoerced-compliantconfession inorder toalleviateandminimisehisdistressarisingfromhis lowIQ,thepressureofhisarrestandthepoliceinterviews.162Thecourtcametothisdecisionbased on the first accused’s undisputed behaviour after arrest, observing the firstaccused’sperformanceonthewitnessstandaswellasthenumerousinconsistenciesinhistestimony.163

E. The Criminal Appellate System164

Sofar,theanalysisofSingapore’scriminaljusticesystemhasoccurredchronologically.The avenue of appeal is the last line of defence of the system against wrongfulconvictions. InSingapore,anydecision thathandsdownthedeathpenaltywillbereviewedbytheCourtofAppeal.

Anappeal toahighercourthasinmanycasescorrectederrorsthatweremade

156 Davidson,Davidson,supranote124.157 [1997]2Sing.L.R.(R)716(H.C.).[1997]2Sing.L.R.(R)716(H.C.).158 RichardLeo,“FalseConfessions:Causes,Consequences,andSolutions”inWesterveltRichardLeo,“FalseConfessions:Causes,Consequences,andSolutions”inWestervelt&Humphrey,supranote3,36.159 Davidson,Davidson,supranote124.160 Chin Seow Noi v. Public Prosecutor,[1994]3Sing.L.R.(R)566(C.A).161 SeealsoAmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy”,SeealsoAmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy”,supra note36.162 Lim Thian Lai,supranote68.atparas.383,434,and441.163 Ibid.atparas.434–441.164 SeealsoSivasamy,“TheCriminalAppellateSysteminSingapore”,SeealsoSivasamy,“TheCriminalAppellateSysteminSingapore”,supranote95.



in the lower court, such as correcting the inadequate performance of counsel. InPoon Soh Har v. Public Prosecutor,165adefencefailuretoobjecttotheadmissionofinadmissibleevidenceresultedinbothaccusedbeingconvicted,buttheconvictionofthesecondappellantwasoverturnedonappeal.166Anappealcanalsocorrecterrorsoflaworfactmadebythetrialjudge.Usually,anappellatecourtwillnotinterferewithatrialjudge’sfindingoffactsbasedonthecredibilityofwitnesses,butwherethefindingsareclearlyagainsttheweightoftheevidenceandareunsupportable,theCourtofAppealwillintervene.167InXP v. Public Prosecutor,whereateacherwaschargedwithoutragingthemodestyofhismalestudents, thetrial judgefoundthetestimonyof twoof thecomplainantsunusuallyconvincing.However,V.K.RajahJ.disagreedwith the trial judgebecauseof internal inconsistenciesandevidentialgaps–oneofthemhadfailedtoreprisetheessentialparticularsofoneoftheallegedincidentsandtheotherhadinexplicablyrecantedonthecrucialmatterofwhetherheandtheteacherhadsharedasleepingbag.Theteacherwasacquitted.

Appeals are also important when new evidence arises post-conviction. ThestandardforadmissibilityoffreshevidenceonappealwasestablishedinJuma’at bin Samad v. Public Prosecutor,viz, theevidence:(1)couldnothavebeenobtainedwithreasonablediligenceforuseatthetrial;(2) wassuchthat,ifgivenatthetrial,itwouldprobablyhaveanimportantinfluenceontheresultofthecase;and(3)wasapparentlycredible.168 InPublic Prosecutor v. Ong Teng Siew, newevidence tenderedby thedefence(relatingtotheaccusedsufferingfromaninheritedskindisorderwhichcouldleadtoagitation)surfacedafterconviction,andonthecasebeingremittedtotheHighCourt,thejudgefoundthatthedefenceofdiminishedresponsibilitytothechargeofmurderwasestablished.169

Althoughthecourthaspreviouslyfounditselfwithoutjurisdictiontoreopenanappealonceithasbeenexhausted170inYong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor171theCourtofAppealheldthatthosecasesdidnotinvolveasituationinwhichnewexonerativeevidencewasdiscoveredorwhereanerroroflawhadbeenmade.WhetherornottheCourtofAppealhadtheinherentjurisdictiontocorrectmistakesmadewithinthejudicialprocessthereforeremainsanopenquestion.Inanyevent,thereisalsothepossibilityofseekingapresidentialpardonunderarticle22P(1)(b)oftheConstitutionofSingapore.172

F. Criminal Revision

Theoptionofcriminalrevisionservesasanotheropportunitytocorrectawrongful

165 [1977–1978]Sing.L.R.(R)97(C.A.).[1977–1978]Sing.L.R.(R)97(C.A.).166 AmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy”,AmarjeetSingh,“CriminalAdvocacy”,supranote36.167 Tan Wei Yi v. Public Prosecutor,[2005]3Sing.L.R.(R)471(H.C.)atpara.34.168 [1993]2Sing.L.R.(R)327atparas.13–14.[1993]2Sing.L.R.(R)327atparas.13–14.[1993]2Sing.L.R.(R)327atparas.13–14.169 [1998]SGHC121.[1998]SGHC121. 170 Vignes v. Public Prosecutor (No 3),[2003]4Sing.L.R.(R)518.171 [2010]2Sing.L.R.192at[7]-[14].[2010]2Sing.L.R.192at[7]-[14].[2010]2Sing.L.R.192at[7]-[14].172 Abdullah bin A Rahman v. Public Prosecutor,[1993]2Sing.L.R.(R)1017.

convictioneveniftheaccusedhasearlierpleadedguiltytoacharge,butheloseshisrighttoappealagainsthisconvictionpursuanttosection244oftheCPC.173AsstatedbyProfessorTanYockLin(andquotedapprovinglyinYunani bin Abdul Hamid v. Public Prosecutor):174

[T]he revisionary jurisdiction, which otherwise functions to all intents andpurposesasanappeal,isapaternaljurisdiction.TheHighCourtexercisesthejurisdictionastheguardianof…criminaljustice,anxioustorightallwrongs,regardless[of]whether[theyare]felttobesobyanaggrievedparty.175

Inrecognitionoftheuniquenatureofitsrevisionaryjurisdiction,thecourtshaveheld that itmust be exercised sparingly,where there is some serious injustice orsomethingpalpablywronginthedecisionwhichstrikesatitsbasisasanexerciseofjudicialpowerbythecourtbelow.176Thispowerhasbeenexercisedincaseswherethe statement of facts did not disclose every element of the offence,177where thepersonconvictedwasfoundtohavefalselyassumedtheidentityofthepersonwhohadactuallycommittedtheoffence,178andwouldcertainlybeexercisedininstanceswhereawrongfulconvictionhasbeenexposed.

III. DISCOVERINGANDPUBLICISINGWRONGFULCONVICTIONS

Aside from serendipitous discoveries and the proper functioning of the criminalprocess,anumberofextra-legalinstitutionshavearoletoplayinbringingwrongfulconvictions to light. These include student organisations in law schools,179 civilsocietygroups180andthemedia.181InlightofthedearthofreportedcasesofwrongfulconvictionsinSingapore,itisperhapsunderstandablethatSingaporelackslawschoolinitiatives and civil societygroups.Even so,would the local or foreignmediabe

173 In Public Prosecutor v. Shaifudin,[2005]SGHC66atpara.17,YongC.J.statedthat,‘[i]tistritelawthatthefactthatapetitionerpleadedguiltyofhisownaccordisnotabartotheexerciseofthecourt’srevisionarypower.Thefactthatapleaofguilthasbeenenteredmeansonlythattheaccusedloseshisrighttoappealagainsthisconviction(seeCPC,supranote16,s.244),andanapplicationbywayofcriminalrevisionistheonlymeansbywhichtheaccusedcanhaveawrongfulconvictionsetaside’.174 [2008]3Sing.L.R.(R)383atpara.45[[2008]3Sing.L.R.(R)383atpara.45[[2008]3Sing.L.R.(R)383atpara.45[Yunani].175 Criminal Procedure(LexisNexis,2007),vol.2,para.XIX.3904.176 Ang Poh Chuan v. Public Prosecutor,[1995]3Sing.L.R.(R)929.177 Chen Hock Heng Textile Printing Pte Ltd v. Public Prosecutor,[1996]1Sing.L.R.(R)418.178 Yunani,supranote174.179 E.g.theInnocenceProjectsfromlawschoolsinLondon’sBristolUniversity,YeshivaE.g.theInnocenceProjectsfromlawschoolsinLondon’sBristolUniversity,YeshivaUniversityintheUSA,andYorkUniversityinCanada.180 E.g.theAssociationinDefenceoftheWrongfullyConvictedinCanada,online:<www.E.g.theAssociationinDefenceoftheWrongfullyConvictedinCanada,online:<www.aidwyc.org>,accessed4June2009.181 RobWarden, ‘TheRevolutionaryRoleof Journalism in Identifying andRectifyingRobWarden, ‘TheRevolutionaryRoleof Journalism in Identifying andRectifyingRobWarden, ‘TheRevolutionaryRoleof Journalism in Identifying andRectifyingWrongfulConvictions’(2002)70U.M.K.C.L.Rev.803.



abletopickuponthem?Goodinvestigativejournalismcanrevealpossiblewrongfulconvictions,182 or suggest how to improve the criminal justice system in light ofwrongfulconvictions.183

Ina2005PressFreedomIndexdrawnupbyReporters Sans Frontieres,Singaporeranked140thoutof167countries.184ThisdimviewofSingapore’spressisattributabletoperceivedself-censorshipbythelocalpressandthethreatoffinesordistributionbanswithregardtotheforeignpress.185CriticsassertthattheSingaporegovernmenteffectivelycontrolsthemediathroughtheNewspaper and Printing Presses Act186andtheMediaDevelopmentAuthority.187However,withoutquestioningtheveracityofthesecriticisms,thishasnotledtheSingaporepresstoreportuntruths,orsuppressfacts. Reports have accompanied allegations of police abuse,188 the droppingof charges by the prosecution,189 and lawyers being reprimanded by the court forimproperconduct.190Additionally,the“Forum”and“Review”sectionsoftheStraitsTimes have become very viable platforms for various members of the public toexpresstheirdoubtsandmisgivings.Theseareusuallyfollowedbyresponsesfromtheauthorities.191Thisformofreportingmaybebeneficial topreventingwrongfulconvictions because the public has access to information, are able to voice theiropinions,andindoingsokeeptheauthoritiesandotherplayersinthecriminaljusticesystemontheirtoes.

The dialogue in the local press may serve to discover, publicise and discusswrongfulconviction.Further,thelocalpressissupplementedbytheforeignmedia(often available online), which have not been shy in criticising the government

182 E.g.ProfessorProtess’s classesatNorthwesternUniversity’sSchoolof Journalism:E.g.ProfessorProtess’s classesatNorthwesternUniversity’sSchoolof Journalism:ProfessorProtess’s classesatNorthwesternUniversity’sSchoolof Journalism:ibid.at845;theworkofBBCreporterJohnSweeneyin‘I’llnevergiveupfightingforthesemothers’Daily Mail (18October 2005); and PBS producerOfra Bikel in ‘Crusading forprisonerswhenthesystemfails’The New York Times(27June2005).183 E.g. ‘Answers in theTruscottCase’E.g. ‘Answers in theTruscottCase’The Toronto Star (24August 2005); ‘BlindingJustice’TheNewYorkTimes(17November2005);and‘JusticeSystemguiltyofdelayonreforms’South China Morning Post(8April2005).184 ReportersSansFrontieres, ‘AnnualWorldwidePressFreedomIndex2005’,online:ReportersSansFrontieres, ‘AnnualWorldwidePressFreedomIndex2005’,online:‘AnnualWorldwidePressFreedomIndex2005’,online:<http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554>,accessed4June2009.185 SeeAnjaliMohanRamchand,‘FreedomofthePress:RegulationundertheNewspaperSeeAnjaliMohanRamchand,‘FreedomofthePress:RegulationundertheNewspaperSeeAnjaliMohanRamchand,‘FreedomofthePress:RegulationundertheNewspaperandPrintingPressesAct,1974’(1990)11Sing.L.Rev.130at141.186 (Cap.206,2002Rev.Ed.Sing.).(Cap.206,2002Rev.Ed.Sing.).(Cap.206,2002Rev.Ed.Sing.).The Newspaper and Printing Presses Actgoverns,inter alia,thecontrolofshareholdingsinnewspapercompanies,thepermitsrequiredforsaleanddistributionofnewspapers,andthelicensingofprintingpresses.187 OneoftheMediaDevelopmentAuthority’sfunctionsistoregulatecontentacrossallOneoftheMediaDevelopmentAuthority’sfunctionsistoregulatecontentacrossallOneoftheMediaDevelopmentAuthority’sfunctionsistoregulatecontentacrossallmassmediainSingapore.Itsstanceoncensorshiphasattractedcriticism;seeReporters Sans Frontieres, ‘Singapore-AnnualReport2005’,online:<http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13440>,accessed4June2009.188 ‘CodeofPracticeNeededforPoliceQuestioning-JC’‘CodeofPracticeNeededforPoliceQuestioning-JC’The Straits Times(5November1995).189 ‘Beware,whatlookssuspiciousmaywellbeinnocent’‘Beware,whatlookssuspiciousmaywellbeinnocent’The Straits Times (9April1995).190 ‘Errantlawyer’sjustdesserts’‘Errantlawyer’sjustdesserts’The Straits Times(30March1993).191 Seee.g.theincidentofSamatDupree’sfalseconfession-’SomequestionsaboutSamat’sSeee.g.theincidentofSamatDupree’sfalseconfession-’SomequestionsaboutSamat’sCase’The Straits Times(24March1993)Forum;andinresponse,‘Prosecutornotifiedofalibi23monthsafterSamat’sarrest’The Straits Times(30March1993)Forum.


and its policies. Every death penalty case attracts commentary from AmnestyInternational192 andsometimeseven leadsother internationalnewspapers toallegeagrossmiscarriageof justiceandanunfair trial.193TheSingaporepublichas thusfar appeared unconvinced by these reports, perhaps because the foreign press isknownforsensationalismandhasbeentoopredictableindisparagingtheSingaporegovernment,194orsimplybecauseofapathy.195Whicheverthecase,boththelocalandforeignpressseemcapableofunearthingcasesofwrongfulconvictionshouldtheyarise.

IV. CONCLUSION

AccordingtoDworkin,peoplehaveaprofoundrightnottobeconvictedofcrimesofwhichtheyareinnocent,butinsomecasesitisuncertainwhethersomeoneisguiltyorinnocentofsomecrime.196Inthissituation,itdoesnotfollowthateachcitizenhasarighttothemostaccurateprocedurespossibletotesthisguiltorinnocence,nomatterhowexpensivetheseproceduresmightbetothecommunityasawhole.197Instead,eachcitizenhas:(1)arightthatcriminalproceduresattachthecorrectimportancetotheriskofmoralharm;and(2)arighttoaconsistentweightingoftheimportanceofmoralharm.

InlightofthisandtheostensiblelackofwrongfulconvictionsinSingapore,nosweepingreformseemsnecessary.However,ascanbeshownfromtheanalysis,thereareareasofrisk,viztheexcessivefocusoncrimecontrolratherthandueprocess.Sometweakingofthesystemisrequiredtoensurethecorrectimportancebeingattachedtotheriskofmoralharm.Thiscouldbedonebyenhancinglegislativeguidelinesovertheworkof thepolice force, the treatmentof eyewitness identification, educatingjudgesoncommonmisconceptionsleadingtowrongfulconvictions,andlayingdownrules for the disclosure of exculpatory evidence.Additionally, Singaporeans alsohavearighttotheconsistentweightingoftheimportanceofmoralharm.Thejudgesshouldthereforeinterpretlegislationandapplyruleswithprotectionoftheinnocent

192 Seee.g. recent reportscalling forurgentactionon theexecutionofNguyenTuongSeee.g. recent reportscalling forurgentactionon theexecutionofNguyenTuongVan- ‘Singapore: Further information on Imminent Execution: Van Tuong NGUYEN’Amnesty International (2 December 2005), online: <http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA360052005?open&of=ENG-SGP>,accessed4June2009.193 See e.g. on the execution of Flor Contemplacion, a domestic helper charged with See e.g. on the execution of Flor Contemplacion, a domestic helper chargedwithmurderofheremployer,‘Maidexecuteddespitedoubts-maidhangsdespiteprotest’Courier-Mail(18March1995);and‘Filipinomaidhangedasappealsfail’The Guardian (London)(17March1995).194 ChuaLeeHoong,‘WhytheyhateSingapore’ChuaLeeHoong,‘WhytheyhateSingapore’The Straits Times(9August2008),online:<http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_266146.html>,accessed4June2009.195 KorKianBeng,‘Patriotismwiltsinapathy’sharshglare’KorKianBeng,‘Patriotismwiltsinapathy’sharshglare’The Straits Times(8August2008),online:<http://www.straitstimes.com/Insight/Story/STIStory_265605.html>,accessed4June2009.196 RonaldDworkin,‘Principle,PolicyandProcedure’inRonaldDworkin,‘Principle,PolicyandProcedure’inA Matter of Principle(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1985)at72.197 Ibid.at92.


inmind.Ultimately, the risk of wrongful conviction in Singapore is probably not high

because of the strong values and high standards that have been worked into thesystem.AsformerAGChanputsit:“Whatisperhapsmoreimportantistheintegrityof thepeoplewhooperate the system, i.e., the investigative and theprosecutorialagencies,andtheultimatesupervisorofthecriminalprocess,thejudiciary.Inotherwords,itispeoplewhomakeasystemfairandjust,andnotthereverse.”198

198 TheSingaporeModel,TheSingaporeModel,supranote7at462.

wrongful convictions in singapore: a … wrongful convictions in singapore: a general survey of risk...

Documents