Video-recorded statements among key changes mooted for fairer legal system

SINGAPORE — Crime suspects will be video-recorded when they have their statements taken by the police, as part of wide-ranging changes proposed to make criminal procedures fairer and more accurate.

The move, which criminal lawyers here have sought for years, is aimed at giving the court a better way of determining the voluntariness and weight of such statements, and will be mandated for suspects of certain offences, such as serious sexual crimes.

This was announced on Monday (July 24) as part of sweeping changes proposed to the Criminal Procedural Code (CPC), which underwent an overhaul in 2010, and the Evidence Act. The last major amendments to the Act were made
in 2012.

The 50 proposed changes, which were put up for a month-long public consultation, span the investigations, trial and sentencing stages. They seek to “strengthen the law and increase protection for the vulnerable, while maintaining a fair balance between the Defence and the Prosecution”, said the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) which plans to table the amendments in Parliament in the fourth quarter of this year.

MinLaw added: “Taken together, they serve to enhance the fairness of existing procedures and to ensure the accuracy and equity of outcomes in the criminal justice system.”

Video recorded interviews may also apply to certain vulnerable witnesses, such as alleged victims of sexual offences, saving them the trauma of repeatedly recounting their ordeal at trial. In these cases, video-recorded statements can be used in place of the victims’ oral testimony in court.

In other cases, law enforcement agencies will have the discretion as to whether a statement should be video recorded or taken in writing, as is the current practice.

Video recording offers the court objective evidence regarding the flow of the interview, as well as demeanour of the interviewer and interviewee, subtleties that are not captured in conventional written statements, MinLaw said.

Currently, written statements are not taken verbatim. Witnesses are only asked to verify that they are an accurate reflection of their version of events.

“While video recording will not completely eliminate the possibility of a suspect’s statement being obtained by threat, inducement or promise, it will enable the court to quickly adjudicate on voluntariness and weight,” said Minlaw.

To prevent the misuse of videos experienced by other jurisdictions, such as where rogue individuals post the video-recorded statements online or sell them on a black market, unauthorised copying, use and distribution of the videos will be made an offence.

The use of video recording during investigations — which is currently in place in Australia, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States — had been debated publicly on several occasions in Singapore, most recently following the suicide of teenager Benjamin Lim in January last year.

The 14-year-old fell to his death hours after he was questioned by police over an alleged molestation. The incident sparked widespread discussion, with the public and Members of Parliament questioning whether the existing protocol for police interviews of young people could be enhanced.

Video recording, some have suggested, may deter police officers from adopting questionable practices. It could also help cut down costs and the length of a court trial, as well as offer protection to law enforcement officers, its proponents have argued.

For instance, video-recorded statements could potentially reduce the time spent on Newton hearings, where the trial on the offence in question is suspended to sort out disputes between both sides on facts that are relevant to the sentence to be imposed, such as whether a statement can be used as evidence.

When video-recording was raised in Parliament in 1994, then-Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs, Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, had said that the suggestion may be considered but is not a cure-all.

During the last CPC review, MinLaw said the suggestion had been considered but was eventually not incorporated because “the Government decided that video recording would not be really effective in ensuring that statements were voluntarily given”. “Nor would video recording prevent allegations that the statements were given under some form of coercion,” it had said.

In 2008 and 2013, Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim and former Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar Nair had raised the issue in Parliament, calling for video recording to be introduced.

Mr Hri Kumar — a former lawyer who is now Deputy Attorney-General — referred to high-profile cases where court time was spent on determining if the evidence was properly recorded or accurately represented.

Ms Lim, a lawyer who had formerly served in the police force, said video recording offers “significant protection to law enforcement officers against groundless allegations” and prevents mistreatment of the accused.

However, it was not until July 2015 that the law enforcement authorities shared that they had been studying the feasibility of introducing video recording of interviews, and how this practice had been adopted in other countries.

The Law Society (LawSoc) said it is reviewing the proposed amendments and will give its feedback to MinLaw after “conducting internal consultations and a careful study of the consultation materials”. “Such feedback will be made publicly available, if appropriate, in due course,” said a LawSoc spokesperson.

Key highlights in proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act

INVESTIGATION
-        Introducing video recording of interviews
-        Allowing serving of notice, order or document by e-mail
-        Strengthening the bail regime

TRIAL
-        Strengthening protection for alleged victims of sexual and child abuse offences
-        Regulating expert evidence

SENTENCING
-        Expanding the community sentence regime
-        Enhancing compensation order regime
-        New procedures to prevent abuse of court processes in concluded cases