Debated in Parliament on 14 Nov 2012.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill makes two key changes to criminal procedure. The first is to the appellate procedure. Clause 10 amends section 374 to provide that no appeal can be filed against a conviction until sentence is passed for that offence. Clause 11 amends section 377 to provide that the time for filing an appeal against conviction, or against conviction and sentence, starts running from the date of the sentence. These two amendments ensure that appeals against conviction and sentence are brought and heard together, consistent with what is already the practice today. Also, with the amendments, an accused no longer has to file a notice of appeal against conviction while waiting for sentence to be passed, but can instead wait until sentence is passed before making a decision.
The second key change is to require confirmation by the Court of Appeal before a sentence of death can be carried out. Clause 12 amends section 383 to provide that sentences of death shall not be carried out unless confirmed by the Court of Appeal in an appeal by the accused; or a petition for confirmation by the Public Prosecutor where there is no appeal.
This petition for confirmation is a new procedure created by clause 13 which introduces a new Division 1A in Part XX of the Criminal Procedure Code. The process is triggered when no appeal is filed within the time allowed for an appeal, and 90 days have expired after the time allowed for appeal has elapsed. Once the process is triggered, the Public Prosecutor will be required to lodge a petition for confirmation.
The Court of Appeal will then examine the record of proceedings and the grounds of decision to satisfy itself of the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction for which the death sentence is imposed; and of the imposition of the death sentence, where this is discretionary. The Court of Appeal may choose to hear parties if it deems that to be necessary. After examining the record, the court will either confirm the sentence of death passed upon the accused; or set it aside, and it can make such further orders as it deems fit.
Page: 1274
Clause 7 makes a related amendment to section 313, to provide that the warrant of execution must be issued by the Court of Appeal. This need for appellate confirmation was suggested by our current Chief Justice, Mr Sundaresh Menon, when he was the Attorney-General, as an avenue to provide another safeguard in our capital punishment regime.
The remaining clauses make minor and technical amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. Sir, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Ms Ellen Lee (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1315.] Mr Speaker, I support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill.
The saying goes, "A human life is of greater value than anything else." According to the amendment Bill, even if the accused who is sentenced to death did not appeal, the Court of Appeal will still automatically initiate the appeal proceedings. Under the new proceedings, the Public Prosecutor must lodge a petition for confirmation with the Court of Appeal after sentencing. The Court of Appeal will then review the correctness, legality and propriety of the death penalty decision. Without confirmation from the Court of Appeal, no death sentence shall be carried out.
This amendment is significant. Many developed and democratic countries have abolished death penalty out of respect for life. Singapore still retains the mandatory death penalty, which appears not in line with the norms of a civil society. Our leaders have always emphasised the importance of building an ideal home, a caring and harmonious society, then why not abolish the death penalty?
The most important reason is that the situation in Singapore is different. Singapore maintains the death penalty because it can deter crimes effectively; it is also widely supported by the public. The Government is reviewing the death penalty to ensure that Singapore's judicial system is able to strike a balance between different objectives, so that both the victim and the accused are treated fairly. I believe this move demonstrates respect to each individual life. Sir, I support the amendment Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill provides for the Court of Appeal to automatically review all death sentences passed, in cases where the accused does not lodge an appeal. I welcome this additional check by our highest Court, which will confirm whether each death sentence was correctly imposed before we send anyone to the gallows.
Page: 1275
I would like to seek two clarifications on the Bill. First, clause 7 amends section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding what is to be done after a death sentence has been passed by a High Court Judge. The proposed change to section 313(c) will now provide that the trial Judge must produce a report stating whether, in his opinion, there is any reason why the death sentence should be carried out. By contrast, the current provision states that he should give his opinion whether there is any reason why the death sentence should or should not be carried out. I would like to know why the Judge now no longer needs to give his opinion as to whether the death sentence should not be carried out. I think his opinion on this is still highly relevant, since we are still retaining offences where the death penalty is mandatory, such as intentional killing under section 300(a) of the Penal Code, and for drugs and firearms offences. I note that the trial Judge's opinion on whether the death sentence is justified will later be read by the President, who has the prerogative of mercy. There may be strong mitigating circumstances which the trial judge noted, but due to the mandatory provisions, he had no choice but to impose the death sentence. However, the President can still do something about it by exercising his prerogative of mercy.
My second clarification concerns the provision at section 394D. It is provided there that no party has the right to be heard in a petition of confirmation, but the court may, if it thinks fit, hear any party either personally or by advocate. If the presence of the parties is still to be discretionary, I think it is important that, if the Court of Appeal wishes to hear from one party, the other party must be present as well. This will enable the other party to respond, if necessary, to any new matters which are raised, and make this last Court appearance fair to all parties before the death sentence is confirmed.
Sir, the thrust of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code means that no sentence of death can be carried out unless confirmed by the Court of Appeal whether on appeal or through review. This amendment provides an additional safeguard in our capital punishment regime.
Sir, this Bill recognises the irreversibility of the death sentence once it is executed. Since a life is at stake, it is of central importance that there is no doubt as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction when a sentence of death is passed.
The overriding concern with substantive justice is just as crucial even as we move from a mandatory death penalty regime towards one where we give our Judges a limited discretion.
Page: 1276
Sir, I regard the combined effect hoped for from the limited discretionary death penalty regime and a more robust procedure relating to the execution of sentences of death is one that seeks to continue secure buy-in and build confidence in the legitimacy of our death penalty regime.
As such, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government would consider re-introducing the requirement of having two High Court Judges to hear cases involving capital offences. Sir, the Minister would agree with me that it is at the trial stage that important findings of fact are done. An appellate Court is loathed to disturb a finding of fact, given that it did not have the opportunity of hearing the evidence first-hand and also of observing the demeanour of the witnesses. Given such deference, having two Judges at the trial level can enhance the public's confidence and that of the accused person in the trial processes. We no longer have the backlog of cases at the Supreme Court level and should be able to deploy two High Court Judges in capital offence cases.
I also seek the Minister's clarification on the role of the President in clause 7 of the Bill. My understanding is that the President will have to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet, and that the President has no discretion in this matter under the proposed new procedure relating to the execution of death sentences. As such, would it not be better not to bring the President into the framework, given that his role is apparently a procedural formality? I fear that this may reinforce the perception that the President is a mere "rubber stamp".
Sir, even as we, as a society, strive towards a criminal justice framework that seeks to properly balance, on the one hand, the cardinal objectives of keeping Singapore and Singaporeans safe, and, on the other, that those convicted receive a punishment that is appropriate to the severity of the crime committed, we must not miss the underlying collective significance of this Bill before us today and the amendments passed by this House to the Misuse of Drugs Act, as well as the Penal Code. And what is this significance? Well, collectively they urge Members of this House and Singaporeans to appreciate the value and sanctity of life. On this note, I support the Bill.
Sir, I thank the Members who spoke. Ms Lee welcomes the amendments, as do Ms Lim and Asst Prof Tan.
Ms Lim had a couple of questions. For the first question, I am not sure I followed very carefully. The current requirement is that the trial judge must, within a reasonable time after a period had lapsed, send to the Minister, a copy of the notes of evidence taken at the trial with a report in writing signed by him stating whether, in his opinion, there are any reasons and, if so, what are the reasons why the death sentence should or should not be carried out. What is now happening is that the Court of Appeal is inserted in the middle because even if there is no appeal, the matter must go to the Court of Appeal.
Page: 1277
The new requirement under subsection (c) is that "the trial Judge who tried the accused must, within a reasonable time after the sentence has been pronounced, prepare a copy of the notes of evidence taken at the trial and a report in writing signed by him stating whether, in his opinion, there is any reason (and, if so, particulars of the reason) why the death sentence should be carried out." The trial Judge must forward to the Court of Appeal the notes of evidence and report referred to in paragraph (c) within a reasonable time and so on. It is just a question of syntax, there is no substantive change.
Can I know what the second question was, please? As I was following the first point, I forgot what the second point was.
Ms Lim, would you like to clarify?
Yes, Sir. If I may be permitted to clarify my first point about section 313(c). As the Minister read out just now, the current section requires the trial judge to give his opinion as to whether the death sentence which he imposed should or should not be carried out. But under the Bill, now he is only restricted to saying why the sentence should be carried out. And my question is: the omission of the second part appears to me significant because even though he, the trial judge, decided to impose the death sentence, he could have done so under circumstances where it was mandatory. That is why his opinion on whether there are any circumstances why it should not be carried out would still be relevant under the current regime as it would be read later by the Cabinet in advising the President to exercise his prerogative for mercy. That was my first query.
There was no intention of changing that. That is why I say it is syntax: whether it should be carried out includes whether it should or should not be carried out. I have said that openly here in Parliament. I know that it reads "whether it should be carried". The Member's concern is, previously, it was slightly broader in language. I can confirm that there is no intention of changing that.
So, can I just clarify with the Minister that the trial Judge can give his opinion about why the sentence should not be carried out?
Mr K Shanmugam : Absolutely.
Okay. My second query actually relates to section 394D, the new section that is being introduced. It provides that no party has a right to appear in the petition of confirmation but the Court of Appeal can decide to hear any party. My point was that if the Court of Appeal wishes to hear one party, I think it is only right that the other party also should be present because this is the last court appearance. The presence of both parties would enable the other party to respond to any new matters which may be raised. Since this is the last hearing before the death sentence is confirmed, I think that would be a fair way to go about it.
Page: 1278
I think we want to give the broadest possible flexibility to the Court of Appeal. If you have a strict requirement that the Court of Appeal should hear both parties, in a situation where neither party has filed an appeal, that could frustrate what the Court of Appeal is trying to do. Here, what we are trying to do is something good, which is to introduce an additional safeguard, and I am sure that the Court of Appeal will observe the rules of natural justice and, where it is necessary, hear both parties. Sometimes, it may not be practicable or possible to hear both parties. But I think we can leave that to the discretion of the Court of Appeal. Our intention is to give the Court of Appeal a broad discretion with the understanding, of course, that the Court of Appeal will act in accordance with the rules of natural justice. You have seen the framework.
As for Asst Prof Tan, if I follow him rightly, the point he made was whether we can go back to the system of two Judges. This was something which we changed at the request of the Courts – to have one trial Judge instead of two. We have certainly not had a request from the Courts to revert to the old system. The last time we reviewed it, we were of the view that it is adequate to have a system with a single trial Judge whose verdict is reviewed by the Court of Appeal. We have not seen anything to change that view but we will keep in mind what you have said.
Would the Minister be able to clarify the role of the President in the review process?
The processes in the Bill which involve the President are technical in nature. Asst Prof Tan has used phrases like "rubber stamp" and so on. But it is the Constitution that sets out the role of the President, including that on these issues. The Constitution provides that he acts on the advice of the Cabinet and that has a very specific technical meaning, which is, perhaps, not often understood by laypersons but which Asst Prof Tan would well appreciate. It means that the President has to act in accordance with the advice given by the Cabinet and not in his discretion. Where the Constitution intends to give the President specific powers to act in his own discretion, it says so expressly. There is no intention of changing that, nor would we be able to change that through ordinary legislation. The President will continue to act on the advice of Cabinet in deciding clemency petitions, as required under the Constitution.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
Page: 1279
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. − [Mr K Shanmugam].*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
Page: 1279
PAPERCUTS