Factors in Deciding Whether or Not to Press Charges Against Persons with Disabilities

Mr Speaker, the responsibility for deciding whether to charge a person is vested in the Public Prosecutor, who exercises prosecutorial discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence.

In deciding whether to charge a person, the Public Prosecutor will consider the facts, the sufficiency of evidence and the public interest. This will involve a careful weighing of a wide range of factors, including the circumstances of the alleged offence and the person.

Where the person has a mental condition or disability, the Public Prosecutor will consider the nature of the mental condition or disability, its severity and the connection, if any, between the mental condition or disability and the alleged offence.

Where appropriate, for example, where the person has no criminal history, the alleged offence is not serious and the person's culpability is lowered as a result of his mental condition or disability, the Public Prosecutor may decide to issue a warning, instead of charging the person. This may, in some cases, also involve a referral for treatment at facilities such as the Institute of Mental Health.

If the Public Prosecutor decides to charge the person, the Public Prosecutor’s charging and sentencing position may be calibrated to take into account the person’s mental condition or disability.

To illustrate, in a 2020 case, a 21-year-old offender committed offences of theft of an SCDF vehicle, cheating and causing hurt to another person by performing a rash act. He was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, a serious form of long-term major mental illness, which contributed to his offending. The Prosecution decided to charge him, considering that the offences were not minor. However, taking into account his mental condition, the Prosecution submitted for a mandatory treatment order to be imposed against the offender, which required the offender to undergo psychiatric treatment in lieu of imprisonment or a fine.

Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor’s exercise of discretion as to whether to charge a person, including a person with a mental condition or disability, is a fact-dependent exercise.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I am well aware that MinLaw and MHA are already stepping up in terms of awareness and supporting people with disabilities in the prosecution processes and even in Police investigations.

But I have still have a lot of families whose children – and some of them are adults now – who committed offences. They seem to be, at the first instance, very, very worried at the start of the process. So, I wonder if the Government can do something to assure the disability community and the families, and also to educate further the Government agencies involved, to assure them that the Government is not heartless and that many of these steps are put in and things will just get better.

It is just to allay the fear. There are lots of anxieties and worries when their children who have less mental or social capacity commit offences. And that kind of anxiety is just all over the social media or in writings to us as Members of Parliament.

I thank the Member for the feedback and I am sure the Member is familiar with some of the efforts that we have put in place. But maybe for the assurance of the Members of this House as well as to the public, perhaps, I could repeat some of the efforts that have been put in place in attending to these matters.

Firstly, the training of frontline officers. Police officers who deal with persons with disabilities during investigations are trained to identify to deal emphatically. They are also trained to spot the behavioural indicators associated with mental disabilities and to engage them sensitively. They undergo a mental health awareness course developed by the Agency for Integrated Care for Government agencies to train their staff in managing persons with mental health conditions, including persons with dementia. This helps the officers become more aware of the signs and symptoms, and guides them in communicating with persons of these conditions.

As part of their core skills training, the investigation officers (IOs) learn the protocols to handle persons with mental disabilities. All these officers also undergo training to continuously shore up their skills. These programmes ensure the IOs are proficient in required investigation procedures and protocols, including those relating to the handling of persons with mental disabilities.

So, firstly, there is training. But apart from training, there is also a set of internal standard operating procedures when dealing with persons with mental disabilities. The focus is to accord additional protection to such persons and ensure that they are supported throughout the investigation process.

Specifically, the Member may be aware of the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Persons with Mental Disabilities (AAPMD) which was introduced in 2015 to support persons with mental or intellectual disabilities during law enforcement interviews. AAPMD is administered by the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS). Under this scheme, an Appropriate Adult who is a trained volunteer is present during interviews to facilitate communications between the IO and the person with mental or intellectual disability. The Appropriate Adult watches for signs of distress, supports the emotional well-being of the person and assists in communication.

These are some of the areas that we can continue to highlight to the parents who are involved. They are understandably anxious when these things happen and typically all rationality goes out the window because you are very worried. So, this is something we can look into. I will take this back as feedback and see what avenues we can continue to enhance the understanding of this. If there are specific cases, please feel free to refer them to us and we will see how we can assist.