Govt to keep approach of naming accused persons once charged but position 'not set in concrete': Shanmugam

• The approach of naming accused persons after they are charged is not “set in concrete”, Mr K Shanmugam said
• The Government can see the merits of shifting to “some version” of a different approach adopted in some countries
• The Ministry of Law had examined the approach to this issue in other jurisdictions
• But, after weighing the pros and cons, it will stick with the status quo for now

SINGAPORE — Following a review, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has decided to stick to the status quo in allowing the publication of the names of accused persons once they are charged, Mr K Shanmugam said on Monday (May 10). They are then publicly tried and the verdicts publicly announced, he added.

“Our position on this issue is, however, not set in concrete,” the Law and Home Affairs Minister said in Parliament in response to a question by Dr Tan Yia Swam, Nominated Member of Parliament.

“We can also see the merits of shifting to some version of the first approach,” Mr Shanmugam said, referring to the practice in some countries of “protecting the identity of accused persons until they are convicted”.

“So we will keep reviewing this, while we are maintaining the status quo."

Dr Tan had asked about the ways press reports of ongoing trials of sex crimes are regulated and what protection is afforded to medical professionals whose reputations are affected by media coverage of these trials. Dr Tan is a medical doctor.

Last month, a range of views emerged when the legal fraternity and media academics examined the question of whether the identity of accused persons should be protected before conviction.

This led to a debate among readers after TODAY ran an article that touched on the challenges faced by individuals who had been charged but were eventually found not guilty.

Several comments by readers raised concerns about how having an individual’s name tied to a crime report would affect their lives.

MinLaw said in response to TODAY’s queries that the matter is being kept under review from time to time.

The ministry added that it recognises the pros and cons of prioritising the principle of open justice.

Mr Shanmugam said that the ministry has considered the practice in other jurisdictions, which are largely divided into two approaches.

The first one leans in favour of protecting the identity of accused persons until they are convicted, with rules to grant anonymity in certain cases.

He gave the example of the Republic of Ireland, where accused persons charged with rape offences are granted anonymity until they are convicted, unless a judge orders otherwise.

In Switzerland, courts can suppress publication of an accused person’s name if it believes that the accused person could be exposed to serious danger or other prejudice if their names are published.

In New Zealand and Australia — where juries hear most criminal trials — the court may suppress publication of an accused person’s name if the naming of accused persons would create a risk of prejudice to a fair trial.

The second approach, however, prioritises the principle of open justice and does not provide the courts with the power to grant anonymity to accused persons in proceedings to protect their reputations.

This is the current approach here as well as in the United Kingdom, where the general position is that legal proceedings should be held in public.

“The downside of this second approach is that, of course, the reputation of accused persons is often irreparably damaged by the publicity from media coverage of an ongoing criminal trial, even if they are acquitted at the end of the day. I think Dr Tan’s question probably arises from the trials of doctors in sex crimes, but this applies to all accused, and to a variety of cases,” said Mr Shanmugam.

Noting that both approaches have their merits and downsides, he added that the Government will maintain its current approach after assessing the issue.

“Our approach also enables unidentified victims of serial offenders to come forward to seek help.” 

However, there are circumstances that require exceptions to be made, such as to protect sensitive information relating to national security, as well as the identities of children and young persons, and alleged victims of sexual or child abuse offences, he added.

Singapore law does not allow information that could lead to the identification of children or young persons involved in court proceedings to be published unless permission is granted by the court. Similar protections are given to alleged victims of sexual or family violence cases.

Mr Shanmugam said: “With that focus, the courts have some power to prohibit publication of the identity of the accused and to impose some conditions on how the trial can be reported. And the media will have to comply with those requirements.”