By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Committee of Supply on 8 March 2013]
I would like to raise 2 areas for review concerning the investigation and pre-trial stages of criminal cases.
First, I would like to re-visit the suggestion to video-record the statements given by accused persons in custody. This practice of video-recording is in place in several advanced jurisdictions including Australia, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Taiwan. Its purpose is as a safeguard, to ensure that the person in custody gave his statement voluntarily and that the words in the statement fell from the accused’s own lips and were not force-fed.
I first raised this issue during MinLaw’s COS 5 years ago, in 2008. At that time, the government response was that video-recording does not ensure that statements are voluntarily given. In 2011, MinLaw made a similar response after the Ismil Kadar case.
While I agree that video-recording is not a fool-proof guarantee against impropriety during investigations, the benefits of doing so are undeniable and accrue to both the state and the defence. For the state, it offers significant protection to our law enforcement officers against groundless allegations that they threatened the accused or subjected the accused to duress. Footage of the statement recording will show the demeanour of the accused and the recording officer, to enable the court to come to certain conclusions about whether the accused’s will was sapped through sleep deprivation or he was not in a proper frame of mind during the recording. Furthermore, statements are often challenged by the defence on the ground that the words in the statement were put in by the recording officer and did not come from the accused. A video-record would settle that question decisively.
In other countries, video recording has been found to save police and court time, as both sides may decide not to pursue certain matters after viewing the recording. At the same time, it is a safeguard to maintaining high standards of law enforcement. We in Singapore may need this safeguard even more, since an arrested person’s right to see counsel under arrest is so limited. Would the government at least re-think its position on this issue, or pilot some trials?
Secondly, the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 introduced a new pre-trial case disclosure regime where both prosecution and defence are required to disclose evidence relevant to the case well ahead of the trial. Since its implementation, I have assisted as defence counsel in a few court cases under the framework, and I can see its value and contribution towards a fair trial. Currently, only District Court cases under the Penal Code and selected statutes come under the disclosure regime. Other cases, e.g. those charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, have not been brought under the framework yet. As the framework has proven useful and successful, when will its scope be expanded to cover other laws like the PCA?
