Criteria and Process to Prefer Charges for Capital Offences

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the criteria and process to prefer charges for capital offences.

Mr Speaker, capital offences are very serious offences, such as murder, kidnapping, firearms offences and trafficking large quantities of drugs.

In cases where preliminary investigations reveal that a capital offence may have been committed by an accused person, a holding charge will be tendered against the accused person in Court. The accused person will be held in remand while further investigations are conducted.

After law enforcement agencies have completed their investigations, they will make their recommendations to the Attorney-General’s Chambers or AGC. AGC will review the evidence and the circumstances of the case holistically, before exercising its prosecutorial discretion to decide on an appropriate course of action – whether to proceed with the capital charge, lesser charge or charges, or to withdraw the charge.

Where there are multiple accused persons allegedly involved in the same capital case, the same holding charge may be tendered against all of them initially. After investigations are completed, AGC will consider the sufficiency of the evidence gathered so far, and the specific role of each accused person. The eventual position taken against each accused person would be based on the evidence available and their role in the case, and may therefore differ.

I will illustrate this with the Downtown East incident in 2010. In the incident, the victim was attacked by a group of 12 Chinese persons in the aftermath of a settlement talk. Five of the 12 accused persons had armed themselves with knives, a screwdriver and a bottle of chilli sauce prior to the settlement talk. During the talk, the accused persons accused the victim of staring at them. They surrounded the victim. Those armed used their weapons to stab and slash the victim, while others punched the victim. The victim eventually passed away due to multiple incised wounds.

Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against the accused persons. After consideration of the evidence available and the roles played by the accused persons in the incident, the charges were amended to rioting for those who had known that there would be a fight, but did not know that others in their group were armed; rioting with a deadly weapon for those who had known that there would be a fight and that others in their group were armed; and culpable homicide not amounting to murder for those armed and actively attacking the victim. Members can see the different categories of involvement.

In line with their respective roles in the incident, the accused persons in the first group received sentences of about three to five years’ imprisonment and three to six strokes of the cane; those in the second group received sentences of five to six years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane; and those in the third group received sentences of seven to 12 years’ imprisonment and five to 12 strokes of the cane.

I will illustrate with another incident which took place around Pandan Loop in 2014. There were four Indian accused persons, which I will refer to as “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. Prior to the attack, “A” told the three other accused persons that “A” and “B” would beat up the victim, “C” would act as a lookout and “D” would wait in the pick-up. “A” and “B” then took a metal rod each from the back of the pick-up and walked towards the Pandan Loop industrial estate. The victim was subsequently found dead from head injuries due to direct blunt force trauma. “A” fled Singapore for India shortly after the incident.

Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against “B”, “C” and “D”. Subsequently, there was careful consideration of the evidence and the respective roles played by them. It was noted that “A” was the main perpetrator and the three other accused persons knew that metal rods would be used before the incident, but there was no prior discussion to cause death to the victim. The charges against the three accused persons were therefore amended to voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon with common intention. “B” was eventually sentenced to three years nine months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane, while “C” and “D” were sentenced to three years six months’ imprisonment.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for the clarification and answer. As a lawyer, I fully appreciate and understand the sentencing precedents and principles. Every case depends on its specific facts and extenuating circumstance, and not all of these facts may be readily available or obviously apparent to members of the public or the media.

So, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State, if I may. There has been some public discussion on the sentences handed out in the Orchard Towers case. Can I ask the Minister of State's view on the sentences meted out and whether this is in accordance with the precedents and sentencing principles that have been clarified earlier?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we are aware of the public discussions on the Orchard Towers case. I think the common feedback that we received is that some of the sentences given look light, considering that someone has been killed.

As I have explained earlier in my reply, for cases like that where it involves multiple offenders, the eventual charges and also the resultant sentences have to take into account of the culpability and the involvement of each of the accused persons. Sir, if I may, since the Member asked about the Orchard Towers case, I would like to share some insights of the case and see how we can share and really see that the sentences that had been rolled out, had been looking at the culpability and the involvement of each of the accused persons, and so that it gives a clarity to the public as well.

In the Orchard Towers case, there are seven accused persons. Four have pleaded guilty to the respective charges. Proceedings for the other three accused persons are on-going.

Let me briefly recap the case. The seven accused persons were drinking at Orchard Towers. When the group was leaving Orchard Towers, the deceased confronted them. Four of the seven accused – Tan Sen Yang, Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow Yu Zhen and Joel Tan Yun Sheng – got into a fight with the deceased.

Tan Sen Yang was allegedly in possession of a knife and slashed the deceased a few times. The deceased eventually passed away from the knife injuries. Tan Sen Yang has been charged for murder and the section 300(c) of the penal code. This offence carries the death penalty or life imprisonment with caning. His case is still on-going.

Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan kicked and punched the deceased during the fight. They did not plan to assault the deceased and did not know Tan Sen Yang would use a weapon during the fight. As the attack by Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan caused two minor and non-fatal abrasions on the deceased body, they were eventually charged with, and pleaded guilty to voluntary causing hurt with common intention.

As only abrasions were caused, Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan would have been liable for a fine only, based on the sentencing guidelines set in a High Court judgment. However, taking into account the aggravating factors, such as their involvement in group violence and the public disquiet caused given that the fight took place in public, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan were given one months' imprisonment. As Ang Da Yuan had previously been convicted of violent crime offences, he was given a higher sentence of two months' imprisonment.

As Ang Da Yuan, Natalie Siow and Joel Tan knew that Tan Sen Yang was carrying a weapon, but continued to remain in his company, they were also charged with consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. Ang Da Yuan was given another six months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, while Natalie Siow was given another five months' imprisonment which was served concurrently with the other sentence, but no caning as she is a female. This charge was taken into consideration in sentencing for Joel Tan. These sentences were consistent with the sentencing benchmarks set by the Courts.

The remaining three accused persons, Tan Hong Sheng, Loo Boon Chong and Chan Jia Xing were not involved in the fight.

That said, Tan Hong Sheng and Loo Boon Chong each face a pending charge of consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. Loo Boon Chong also faces a pending charge of perverting the course of justice. Their cases are on-going.

Chan Jia Xing tried to stop the fight and was co-operative with Police investigations. Hence, he was given a 12-month conditional warning for consorting with a person carrying an offensive weapon. He has been warned that no leniency would be accorded to him should he re-offend during this period, and he may still be charged for the offence.

There were also some comments that the accused persons have received lenient sentences because of their race. These allegations are totally baseless and highly irresponsible. I assure the House that our criminal justice system does not give any preferential treatment based on race, religion, socio-economic status, educational achievements and so on. Everyone is treated equally and fairly.

As I have explained, the sentences eventually given to an accused, depends on the evidence and his role. In the Downtown East example I gave earlier, the sentences given out to the 12 Chinese offenders ranged from three years and three strokes of the cane, to 12 years and 12 strokes of the cane.

Sir, if I may, I will give another example – the St James Power Station incident in 2017. There were four Malay accused persons, which I will refer to as "A", "B", "C" and "D". After an argument between "A" and the Indian victim's group in a club at St James Power Station, "A" felt aggrieved and contacted "B" who rallied "C" and "D" to arrive at the club, with the intention to attack the victim's group. When "B" stepped away for a phone call, "C" who was armed with a foldable knife, punched the victim and stabbed him repeatedly, while "A" and "D" punched and kicked the victim. The victim died from stab wounds to the thorax and head. When "B" returned to the club entrance later, the attack by "A", "C" and "D" had already been completed.

Holding charges of murder were initially preferred against the accused persons. After consideration of the evidence available and the roles played by the accused persons, the charges were amended.

First, only "C" was charged with murder, as he brought along and used a weapon. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

Second, "D" was charged with voluntary causing grievous hurt with common intention. He was sentenced to eight years six months' imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane. Another charge of voluntarily causing hurt with common intention was taken into consideration for sentencing.

Third, "A" was charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt with common intention. He was sentenced to five years six months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. Another charge of voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapon with common intention was taken into consideration for sentencing.

Fourth, "B" was charged with harbouring of offenders. He was sentenced to one year six months' imprisonment, and another charge of abetment of voluntarily causing hurt was taken into consideration for sentencing.

Overall, the offenders' charges in this case reflected the premeditated plan to attack the deceased, their respective culpability and involvement and the sentences imposed were similarly consistent with sentencing benchmarks. So, let me emphasise again: there is no preferential treatment based on race, religion, socio-economic status or educational achievements.