Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Raj Thomas and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the proposed amendments to allow the Police to conduct a search without warrant.

This specific amendment is about searching a place, in order to investigate a specific arrestable offence, where the police believe that the item they are looking for, related to this investigation, is in the possession or control of the suspect.

As I have mentioned earlier in my speech, this power is not new. The Police can already perform a search without warrant for arrestable offences in certain circumstances, and the amendment makes the exercise of this power more practicable. I have also spoken about the prerequisites before exercising this power. For example, Police will have to apply for a court order for a search where the owner of the property is not a suspect and is uncontactable. To clarify, the powers under section 34 are for investigation into arrestable offences. For investigation into non-arrestable offences, Police will still need to obtain an order of the Public Prosecutor or a Magistrate before they can conduct searches without warrant.

Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the safeguards to protect sensitive financial information obtained by LEAs. The relevant LEA officers are obliged to safeguard official information obtained during investigations under the Official Secrets Act.

The specific LEAs must also adhere to guidelines in the Singapore Government Instructions Manual for Security of Classified Information and may also put in place operational safeguards to secure the data and prevent unauthorised access, for example, in respect of how the data will be stored and handled, and who can access the data.

I next move on to the questions on FME. The questions broadly fall within three categories: first, issues relating to consent; second, procedures of FME; and third, safeguards for vulnerable persons undergoing FME.

First, I address the questions about consent. Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Zhulkarnain asked about situations where an FME can be proceeded with where the victim cannot give consent and who makes the determination.

The assessment of the victim's ability to consent will be made by the Police officer. Police may also consult relevant experts, where appropriate. For example, when a potential victim of sexual assault is brought to the hospital unconscious, the Police will generally take into account the assessment of the medical professionals treating the person, such as whether and when the person is likely to regain consciousness, before deciding whether to wait for the victim to regain consciousness or to proceed with FME without consent.

Ms Usha Chandradas asked for examples of temporary conditions other than intoxication. The examples in the Bill are non-exhaustive. Another example other than intoxication is when the victim has fainted. In such circumstances, Police will have to assess the situation. If there is no risk to the evidence, they can wait.

Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about the thresholds for reasonable efforts under section 40H. In contacting a victim’s parent, guardian, deputy or donee. What constitutes reasonable efforts will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, which will include consideration of the time sensitivity of the FME.

Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Nadia Samdin had questions about the consent requirements for minors, including a situation when a minor victim has differing preference with his or her parents on the consent of FME.

For victims above the age of 14 years old, their consent is required to recognise their autonomy. The age threshold of 14 years old takes reference from the concept of Gillick competence used in medical law that a person aged 14 or above would have sufficient understanding and maturity to understand proposed medical procedure and consequences. For victims below the age of 16 years old, the consent of the authorised decision-maker is required. For victims between 14 and 16 years of age, consent from both the victim and his or her authorised decision-maker is required. Where either the victim or the parent does not consent, Police will not proceed with the FME.

Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the basis of the Police overriding the wishes of a donee or guardian for FME conducted on the victim. She may be referring to section 40H(3)(b)(iii)(C) of the Bill. To clarify, aside from the carve-outs for suspected perpetrators and persons who wish to conceal the offence, which the Member has already mentioned, the Police can proceed with the FME only if the authorised decision-maker abstains from giving consent. This could happen, for example, if they are in an estranged relationship and do not want to be involved in the decision.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the differentiated approach towards victims and accused persons, specifically the penalties for refusal and consent requirements for minor accused persons.

As Minister Shanmugam explained in his opening speech, and as I have explained in my Malay speech earlier, we take a different approach towards victims and accused persons. This is because accused persons who have committed the offence may refuse to consent to the FME in a bid to escape liability. For accused persons who are minors, we take the same approach in terms of consent requirements. But at the same time, we are putting in place safeguards when FME procedures involve intimate parts or invasive procedures. On the other hand, we would want to ensure that victims are treated differently. To clarify, there will be no offence when victims refuse an FME. For accused persons, they will not be liable for the offence if they had a reasonable excuse to refuse the FME.

I move on to the second category of questions about the procedures of FMEs.

Ms Usha Chandradas and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked about the advice or information provided before the FME is carried out. Mr Desmond Choo asked what is considered reasonable excuse to refuse an FME.

There will be measures put in place so that those who are asked to undergo the FME procedure know what to expect. For example, beyond being told they will be examined, they will also be informed about the relevant procedure.

For victims and their decision-makers, they can consider this information before deciding whether to consent. For accused persons, they will be reminded to comply unless they have a reasonable excuse, such as a health condition that would result in the FME endangering them. They will also be cautioned that if they do not comply without a reasonable excuse, reasonable force may be used, except where the FME relates to intimate parts or involves taking an invasive sample.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Zhulkarnain asked if victims can seek a forensic medical examination without reporting the matter to the Police.

FMEs are forensic procedures for the purpose of gathering evidence for criminal investigations. The position we have taken in Singapore is that an FME will only be carried out on the direction of the Police. This is important for serious offences, so that Police can make timely intervention and commence investigations into the matter. Given that FME is a critical part of the criminal investigation, it should be conducted with oversight of the Police to be done robustly and with accountability.

Victims who wish to seek medical treatment or counselling are always welcome to do so, with the institution or practitioner of their choice, but such treatment and counselling are not considered FME.

On Mr Zhulkarnain’s question on allowing FMEs to be conducted by GPs, it is in the same context as mentioned earlier that some FMEs are only conducted at select public hospitals. These matters may end up in Court.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked why the age thresholds in the FME context are different from the general position for medical treatments. This is because medical treatments can have greater risks and have more significant bodily impact on the patient, compared to FME procedures.

Mr Zhulkarnain suggested that medical advice be given prior to an FME. FMEs are forensic procedures. They are not medical treatments. Persons subject to an FME would be informed of the procedure and what to expect.

Mr Derrick Goh asked if the victim can request to remove FME information that was collected without their consent. To reiterate, FME information will only be collected without a victim’s consent in exceptional circumstances. If forensic evidence has already been collected under such exceptional circumstances, the evidence will be retained to allow the Police to solve the crime and bring the perpetrator to justice. The information of the victim will be kept confidential and used for investigating the case at hand.

Should the victim request not to pursue the case, Police will notify AGC of the victim’s request. Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor will decide whether to proceed with the case, in exercise of his independent prosecutorial discretion.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi asked about samples that are considered invasive. Whether a sample is invasive or not depends on the procedure used to obtain the sample. For example, obtaining a saliva sample via a buccal swab or extracting a hair sample by cutting the subject’s hair are not invasive procedures.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked whether Police would prioritise less invasive and intimate procedures over more intrusive ones. It is often the case that particular types of forensic evidence can only be derived through specific FME procedures. For example, a swab has to be taken from the penis of the accused person, and not from other body parts, when investigating into an alleged rape offence, to show proof of contact between the victim’s body and the accused person’s penis. For such instances, there are no substitutes for the intimate FME which has to be done.

Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas had questions about the use of “reasonable force” on accused persons. Police will first look at the facts and circumstances of the case, before deciding whether an accused person should undergo an FME.

There is time sensitivity in obtaining forensic evidence to minimise the risk of contamination. This is especially so for DNA evidence which degrades rapidly when exposed to the external environment. It would, therefore, not be feasible to require a warrant from the Courts before proceeding with the FME, including using reasonable force to carry out the FME when required.

Police have established protocols on the use of force. What constitutes reasonable force will depend on the circumstances of the case. Examples include pulling on a cheek to swab the inside of the suspect’s mouth and holding the subject’s head still to obtain a hair sample.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the training of auxiliary police officers (APOs) in the conduct of FMEs. Reasonable force cannot be used on a victim and on FMEs involving intimate parts or invasive procedures. APOs undergo the appropriate training, which includes the use of reasonable force.

Ms Usha Chandradas asked who will conduct the FME of the person’s intimate parts, if that person identifies differently from their registered sex. The Police will generally take reference from the sex that is registered on the individual’s identity card or identification document.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the disclosure of intimate images, and Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Desmond Choo raised a similar question about precautions in relation to disclosure of material obtained through FME procedures.

Under the proposed amendments, the Prosecution will not be required to serve on the Defence copies of documentary exhibits consisting any image of an individual’s genital or anal region or the breasts of a woman. Instead, the Prosecution must arrange for the Defence to view the documentary exhibit at a Police station or other prescribed place, if the Prosecution is legally required to disclose the exhibit and the Defence requests to view the exhibit.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Prosecution can serve a redacted exhibit where the intimate image is removed. Whether it is appropriate or practicable to serve a redacted form of the documentary exhibit will depend on the exhibit in question.

I will next address the third category of questions which are about safeguards for vulnerable persons.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Denise Phua and Ms Nadia Samdin asked how victims and vulnerable persons will be supported.

First, in relation to victims. Victim care is a key aspect of the Police’s procedures for handling sexual assault cases. As Minister Shanmugam mentioned, there will be safeguards in place, including reasonable privacy measures when the FME involves the subject’s intimate parts. These include measures to inform the victim about the relevant FME procedure and they can communicate any concerns. For minor or vulnerable victims undergoing FME, the Police may allow the victim to have a trusted person to be present to support the victim through the process, where this will facilitate the FME and not jeopardise investigations.

Beyond the amendments, the Police have also put in place measures to support victims. For example:

(a) the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command, which is staffed by officers who are specifically trained to deal with sexual crime and family violence cases.

(b) the Victim Care Cadre programme, which is offered to victims of family violence below 18 years of age and sexual crime. A Victim Care Officer will be assigned to provide emotional and practical support to victims throughout the criminal justice process; and

(c) the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination (OneSAFE) Centre was redesigned and expanded with an enhanced improved design to provide victims with more privacy and convenience during the investigation process.

MSF also encourages these victims to seek help from Protection Specialist Centres (PSCs), which can assist them in applying for Personal Protection Orders and facilitate alternative safe accommodation. Victims of sexual violence will be supported by forensic psychologists in the PSCs who will provide timely psychological assessments and interventions, such as the treatment of trauma. Victims or those who know of someone experiencing sexual violence can also contact the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment helpline at 1800-777-0000, which can provide psychosocial support and referrals to appropriate agencies.

We would like to thank Assoc Prof Razwana Begum for her suggestions on the Victim Care Cadre Programme. We will consider them carefully.

For accused persons, where minor or vulnerable accused persons undergo intimate or invasive FME procedures, the Police will notify the accused person and, if possible, a trusted person, that the accused person has been required to undergo FME; inform them about the relevant FME procedure; and allow the accused person to speak with the trusted person on the phone through the speaker.

This will be the general position, unless Police assess that investigations may be affected. The Police will also consider how to treat vulnerable accused persons, including those with disabilities or special needs sensitively, which was a point raised by Ms Denise Phua.

We would also like to thank Ms Denise Phua for her other questions on specialised interview techniques for vulnerable persons, the Appropriate Adult Scheme and on supporting vulnerable persons during the criminal process, beyond the context of FMEs. This is an important area, and the Government has introduced changes in this regard in recent years. However, as these issues are not the focus of this Bill, we will not deal with them in detail today. We note Ms Phua’s points and will look into these as part of our regular reviews.

Lastly, to Mr Derrick Goh’s questions about the number of cases where the lack of legal powers for FMEs has impeded investigations, the Police do not track this.

Mr Speaker, I will now address the questions on our Court processes.

Mr Derrick Goh had asked about abscondment and safeguarding against flight risks, for the proposal to allow the Courts to release accused persons on personal bond for non-bailable offences punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment or less. The number of cases where persons on personal bond absconded is not specifically tracked.

The proposed amendment will allow more accused persons to be released before trial, but this will only be in appropriate cases, after an assessment of various factors, including flight risk. There will be additional safeguards, given that there is no bailor to ensure the accused person's attendance. For example, the Court can only release a person on personal bond for these non-bailable offences if the Prosecution consents. Even if the Prosecution consents, the Court can still refuse to release the person on personal bond, if it assesses that it is not appropriate to do so.

Where the Court releases an accused on personal bond, the Court must impose any condition specified by the Prosecution for the accused to be released on personal bond; and the Prosecution can withdraw consent previously given, at any stage of the proceedings. This caters for any changes of circumstances, including the discovery of new information relating to the accused's flight risk.

Mr Derrick Goh also asked about the Panel of Psychiatrists. The work to operationalise the Panel is ongoing. We have been working to prepare the relevant subsidiary legislation and put in place the necessary processes relating to admissions to the Panel.

As for Mr Derrick Goh's question on mitigating conflicts of interest in appointments by the Selection Committee, measures will be put in place to manage any potential or actual conflicts of interest. This includes the possibility of Selection Committee members or the Chief Justice recusing themselves from the matter, if necessary.

I will now address the Members' questions on the proposed disclosure provisions.

Mr Louis Ng asked who is considered a "material witness", for the purpose of the Prosecution's obligation under the new section 221B(1), clause 23 of the Bill. The definition is set out in the new section 221A(2).

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether the proposed sections 221A to 221D prevent the Prosecution from disclosing Prosecution witnesses' statements, and asked about the circumstances in which the Prosecution would have to disclose such statements.

These proposed provisions are consistent with the case law on the disclosure of Prosecution witnesses' statements. Statements of Prosecution witnesses may have to be disclosed to the Defence under section 221B if these statements fulfil the KDO criteria, which we are proposing to codify. This is set out in section 221A(1).

Whether a Prosecution witness's statement has to be disclosed under the codified KDO in section 221B in a particular case, will depend on the facts.

I will now address Members' questions on SEPP. The questions cover a number of areas, which I will deal with in turn.

First, Members, including Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Mr Sharael Taha, asked for certain statistics, including on the number of repeat sex offenders and the number of offenders who are expected to receive SEPP. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi also asked about the intended benefits of the regime.

I start by clarifying that SEPP is not based on any specific crime trend. As Minister Shanmugam shared, SEPP is the outcome of our regular review of our laws. It is intended to provide the Courts with an additional tool to address dangerous offenders who commit serious crimes and pose an assessed risk of committing similar crimes again in the future after their release.

Based on the current statistics, it may be less than 30 cases per year where the SEPP may be appropriate.

Ms Sylvia Lim provided her cautious support for the regime, for which I thank her. She raised some questions including whether it may be better for the Court to impose a long imprisonment sentence, as may already be done, rather than a SEPP.

Our view is that simply increasing the length of the incarceration is not the right solution. Some dangerous offenders may continue to pose a danger to society, even after serving a very long prison sentence. I will refer to the list of case examples. Each victim is a serious tragic situation.

Under the present law, we must release such offenders unconditionally after they have served their sentence, even if they still pose a danger to the public.

On the other hand, there is also another situation which we should seek to avoid. These offenders could be subject to very long sentences upfront and may be detained for longer than necessary because the Court has to rely on an assessment done at the time of sentencing. Under SEPP, the Court does not always need to impose a longer sentence at the outset for public protection. It can better focus on the circumstances of the offence when setting the minimum period of custody, knowing that there will be a further risk assessment prior to release.

This may very well result in the offender being detained for a shorter period, especially if he is successfully rehabilitated and can be released after the minimum period of custody. On the other hand, if he still poses a danger, he will continue to be detained – in such cases, the offender may be detained for longer than presently the case.

This is also a more calibrated approach, as Minister Shanmugam shared.

Next, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Usha Chandradas asked about the suitability criteria and the factors which the Courts will consider when deciding whether to impose SEPP.

Ms Usha Chandradas also asked about possible sentencing guidelines, and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim had a question on the role of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in determining the ambit and types of offences that fall within the SEPP.

The criteria are set out in the legislation in broad terms to give the Courts sufficient discretion to decide when SEPP should be appropriate, based on the specific facts of each case. I should also clarify that the types of offences that qualify for SEPP are set out in the legislation and is not something that the Sentencing Advisory Panel will decide on.

Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted that even first-time offenders can be sentenced to SEPP, and raised the concern that SEPP may not be appropriate for one-off cases. We have sought to deal with this in the Bill. The Court must call for an independent risk assessment report for first-time offenders before deciding whether SEPP is appropriate. The legislation also requires the Court to be satisfied that the first-time offender "poses a substantial threat of causing serious physical or sexual harm to any other person or persons". This standard makes clear our policy intent that, for first-time offenders, SEPP should only be imposed in serious cases.

Members may also refer to the case examples we provided. The first seven cases listed in the handout all relate to offenders with no previous convictions. Members would agree that these are egregious cases. If similar cases arise, our view is that the Court should have the option of imposing SEPP, even if the offender has no prior convictions.

To respond to Mr Louis Ng's question about the differences between SEPP and SPP – SEPP has much more stringent criteria than SPP. This is set out in the legislation. For example, to qualify for SEPP, the offender must be convicted of one of the serious violent or sexual offences in the new Seventh Schedule.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi also asked why certain offences, such as sexual crimes committed through the Internet, do not qualify for SPP and SEPP. To clarify, the offences raised by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi do qualify for SPP. SEPP will apply for severe cases, as set out in the Bill.

Mr Sharael Taha had questions about the sentencing for SEPP, including whether it applies to current offenders and whether it is imposed at the point of sentencing or release. SEPP does not apply to current offenders – the regime will only apply to offences committed after the amendments are passed and brought into force. As it is a sentence, it is imposed by the Court at the point of sentencing after the offender is convicted.

Mr Sharael Taha also had questions on who would provide the risk assessment report to the Court and whether the offender can appeal against his sentence. Mr Desmond Choo asked if such reports should be mandatory. At the sentencing stage, the risk assessment report will be provided by an independent appointed psychiatrist, usually from IMH. For first-time offenders, the Court is obliged to call for the report. For repeat offenders, it is not mandatory, but the Court has the discretion to call for the report, where appropriate. In addition, the Defence can also produce its own expert reports. Any disputes over these expert assessments will be settled in line with existing principles of law. An appeal may also be filed if either the Prosecution or the Defence is dissatisfied with the Court's decision on the sentence.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether there is any limit to the number of times the offender can be remanded in custody for the pre-sentencing risk assessment. There is no limit set out in the statute. To be clear, it is the Court which decides on the period of remand. The process will be similar to other pre-sentencing assessments, for example, for Corrective Training and Preventive Detention, which are supervised by the Courts.

I will next deal with the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the rehabilitative resources available to offenders. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum suggested that they could be segregated from other prisoners with extra support.

Prisoners sentenced to SEPP may not necessarily be segregated – they will be housed in line with prevailing Prison policies. This will allow them to benefit from the very comprehensive suite of rehabilitative programmes that are available to all inmates. These include work, religious and educational activities. Their suitability for such programmes will depend on their conduct, any medical conditions, willingness, as well as any programme-specific requirements. The offenders will also have access to psychology-based interventions targeting their specific needs, including specific violent and sexual interventions.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum also asked whether the treatment of offenders placed on SEPP and SPP can be subject to oversight by independent visitors. As SEPP and SPP offenders will be detained in prisons, all the safeguards and systems in place for our prisons will apply to them. This includes the Board of Visiting Justices, an independent body which conducts random inspections of prisons facilities and speaks to prisoners to ensure the welfare of prisoners.

I next move on to the questions from Members, including Mr Derrick Goh, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, about the review process at the end of the Court-imposed minimum term.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about why it is the Minister, and not the Court, that decides on the offender's release, and if this interferes with the Court's sentencing powers. As Minister Shanmugam made clear, it is the Court which will decide whether SEPP is appropriate. The Court can decide not to impose SEPP if it of the view that an ordinary imprisonment term is more appropriate.

When the Court decides that SEPP is appropriate, the possibility that the offender may be detained past the minimum period is a part of the sentence imposed by the Judge. The Court decides whether SEPP is appropriate in line with the usual sentencing power to assess how the considerations of deterrence, retribution, public protection and so on are to be given effect.

After the minimum period, the decision is a different one. The continued detention of the offender past that point, once the term has expired, is no longer to punish the offender, but to protect the public. It involves a complex assessment of multiple factors including the risk that the offender might reoffend, his conduct in prison and his rehabilitative progress and prospects.

The logical and principled approach is for this to be an executive decision. There can be judicial review in specific situations.

The Minister's role in deciding whether to release the offender is not unique in our criminal justice system, as Minister Shanmugam shared earlier. Under the current sentences of Corrective Training and Preventive Detention, it is the Minister who decides whether someone should be released on licence before the end of the sentence. Similarly, for life imprisonment prisoners, the Minister decides if they should be released on remission before the end of the sentence. Similar considerations apply here. The Minister will also be advised by a Detention Review Board.

There are also other jurisdictions with similar regimes. For example, Canada and New Zealand have similar sentences for dangerous offenders, where the offender is detained for a certain minimum period after which the offender can be detained further until a Parole Board decides that the offender is suitable for release.

Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the constitution of the Detention Review Board. As mentioned during Minister Shanmugam's opening speech, the Review Board will comprise of persons with high public standing, with experience in forensic psychiatry or psychology, or experience with the criminal justice system. This may include retired judges, senior lawyers or senior psychiatrists and psychologists.

Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Louis Ng asked about the criteria and frameworks that will guide the Minister and the Detention Review Board when assessing an offender's suitability for release. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked whether the views of the victims or families or public interest would be considered during the review. Each decision is case-specific, and the key factors will include the offender's conduct in prison, his rehabilitative progress and prospects, his likelihood of reoffending and the likely seriousness of the offences if he reoffends. These criteria will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the standard of proof that the Minister will apply when considering whether the offender ought to be released and whether he must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The review is a complex assessment of what is in the interest of public safety and protection based a number of factors, including the expert risk assessment and the offender's rehabilitative progress and prospects. Ultimately, it is a judgment that has to be made, based on expert assessments.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether an offender could make representations when he is reviewed for release. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether there could be independent advocates to represent the offender. As covered in the Minister's opening address, offenders can make written representations, whether by themselves, their family members or through their legal counsel, when they are reviewed for release.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Ng also asked about the methods for assessing an offender’s suitability for release. Ms Sylvia Lim also raised the concern that such assessments may give rise to false positives. Independent risk assessments by experts will play a role in this regime. Such assessments will be done by experts. When conducting the assessments, the assessor can also interview the subjects and possibly their next of kin, and this can be supplemented with relevant information from the agencies. All of this is not fail-proof. But it is much better than the current situation where some come out without any risk assessment and destroy more lives, others spend an unnecessarily longer time in jail.

To address Ms Sylvia Lim’s concern, the risk assessments are to identify the risk of violence, which includes physical violence and sexual violence. They are not used to predict the future. Instead, the tools guide the Detention Review Board and the Minister on the appropriate decision to be made, based on a variety of factors, including the risk assessment as well as the appropriate balance between the risk that the offender poses and the interests of public protection.

Mr Desmond Choo asked about the frequency of these reviews. The legislation stipulates that there must be mandatory annual reviews for every year that the offender is detained past the minimum period of custody set by the Court.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked if the Minister will produce a report to justify the continued detention of the offender. The offender will be duly notified of the Minister’s decision. Members will appreciate that there are a number of considerations at play, including the possible need to keep certain information confidential as well as the need to prevent offenders from gaming the system. We will also consider and study what details, if any, can be made public.

Mr Derrick Goh asked if an offender could appeal against the extension of his detention. I can assure the Member that Prisons and the Ministry will not want to keep anyone in prison longer than necessary. The Court would have already imposed a SEPP sentence on the offender. The offender would have had a right of appeal against his sentence and by the time he is serving the SEPP, he would either have exercised his right or appeal, or have given it up. There will be mandatory annual reviews for every year that the offender is detained past the minimum period of custody set by the Court. There will be no further right of appeal from the Minister’s decision.

I will next deal with questions on what happens after an SEPP offender is released on license.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether such offenders can be placed in half-way houses. The answer is yes – as with other ex-inmates, SEPP offenders released on license can be placed in half-way houses to support their reintegration. I thank her for the suggestion that we consider the restorative model of justice during the reintegration process.

Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Sharael Taha asked for greater clarity on the criteria for when an offender can be released without conditions. An SEPP offender who is detained will be released on licence. When an offender is released on licence, his case will be reviewed at least every two years by the Minister. The offender may then be unconditionally released depending on his progress outside of Prison, and the primary consideration will be whether his risk to others has been sufficiently addressed.

Ms Hany Soh and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the conditions which may be imposed when an offender is released on licence. Ms Hany Soh asked if sexual offenders who are released from SEPP would be subjected to measures to prohibit them from coming into unnecessary contact with their former victims and children. In preparation for an offender’s release, Prisons would consider what conditions can be imposed on the offender that could help protect the victim. Obviously, this cannot be a complete guarantee.

Mr Sharael Taha raised the concern that the Internet use of such offenders will need to be monitored, as online platforms are often used to groom and exploit potential victims. There is a limit to what can be done. Prisons will consider imposing suitable conditions, but then again, it is not always going to be possible to guard against every possible risk, and a person may breach his conditions.

Members also asked about other possible measures to tackle serious violent and sexual crimes.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the Government had considered alternatives to SEPP and SPP. One option is to extend the range of situations in which life imprisonment can be imposed. But life imprisonment is a blunt tool that is not always appropriate. SEPP is a more measured solution specifically calibrated to the risk that the offender poses to the public. It balances public protection and fairness to the offender, so that he does not need to be detained for longer than necessary.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi suggested expanding the use of our current community-based programmes and interventions. These are options that remain available. However, they may not be appropriate or effective for the very serious cases that SEPP is intended to address, where the offender poses a danger to the community and needs to be detained further.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether the Government had considered chemical treatments or surgical options for sexual offenders before they are released. At present, we do not intend to introduce such measures – they give rise to various issues and may not add much to our existing sentences. The key point is that, under SEPP, there will be assessments to ensure that, as far as possible, the risks of releasing such offenders will be reduced.

Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Sharael Taha also asked about measures to protect the public from serious offenders who are not sentenced to SPP or SEPP, including current offenders. Offenders serving imprisonment terms are first released on a remission order. For sufficiently serious offences, the offender will be subject to the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) during his remission period. While on MAS, he will be subject to conditions such as curfew, electronic monitoring, and supported with counselling, employment assistance and case management. Safety plans can also be formulated to protect potential victims.

The MAS regime is broadly similar to the release on license regime for SPP and SEPP – the key difference is that the conditions under MAS cannot be extended beyond the remission period, which is why we need SEPP.

Mr Sharael Taha raised the importance of upstream interventions, including preventative programmes and mental health support, a point that was also raised by Ms Usha Chandradas. Ms Usha Chandradas raised the point that stricter punishment on its own may not be sufficient to address violence against women. We agree and we are conscious that SEPP is not a silver bullet.

We have to look at many approaches to tackle sexual violence as part of our ongoing reviews. I also earlier shared some of the measures we have put in place to support victims through the criminal process.

In addition, the community – such as the parents and caregivers – also play an important role in protecting vulnerable individuals such as children. We urge them and victims to step forward, seek help and report such crimes to the Police so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.

Mr Louis Ng raised some questions on SPP, including on the relevant factors that the courts will consider before imposing SPP. To reiterate, SPP is generally based on the current CT and PD regimes so the principles and factors will be similar. These include the nature of the offences and the offender’s criminal history, and risk of recidivism.

Mr Speaker, with that I conclude my round-up speech, and thank Members once again for their support for the Bill.