SINGAPORE — Recently, a man wielding a sword allegedly attacked some cars and a pedestrian along Buangkok Crescent. He has since been charged and remanded for psychiatric observation.

This means that he is held in a psychiatric institution so that doctors can determine whether he is of sound mind and capable of making his defence against the charge.

This is not uncommon. For example, Phoon Chiu Yoke, known as the “badge lady” because she refused to wear masks and demanded to see a Safe Distancing Ambassador’s badge, was also remanded for psychiatric observation last year.

In such cases, it is important for the court to establish whether the accused is mentally sound because it may affect either conviction, whether the accused is guilty of the offence, or sentencing, determining the severity of a guilty offender’s punishment.

It is a misconception of popular culture that “pleading insanity” allows an offender to get off scot-free.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON IS SUSPECTED OF MENTAL ILLNESS?

If an accused person displays signs of mental illness, whether this be waving a sword around or making bizarre allegations, it is the court’s duty, under the Criminal Procedure Code, to investigate whether the accused is of sound mind.

This can happen in two ways. First, the prosecution may apply to the court for the accused to be remanded for psychiatric observation.

Second, even if the prosecution does not raise the issue, if the judge is not satisfied that the accused is capable of defending himself, the judge must postpone the proceedings and order the accused remanded for psychiatric observation.

In either case, the period of remand cannot exceed one month.

After the observation period, a medical report will be provided to the court, stating the doctor’s conclusions and diagnoses, if any.

The court then makes the final decision. The accused may be found to be of sound mind, in which case court proceedings will resume, or of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, in which case court proceedings may be stayed — which means put on hold.

To be found to be of "sound mind" does not mean that the accused does not have a mental condition.

It is merely an assessment of the accused’s fitness to stand trial — the accused may have a mental condition but it may not be sufficiently serious or of such a nature that it prevents the accused from defending himself.

HOW IS MENTAL ILLNESS RELEVANT TO CONVICTION?

If the accused is capable of defending himself, any mental condition he has may nonetheless be relevant to conviction.

First, the mental condition could mean that the mental element of the offence is not satisfied. Every offence is made up of “elements” — things that the prosecution need to prove for the accused to be found guilty and convicted.

Generally, there are both physical and mental elements to an offence. The physical element refers to what the accused did. For example, in a murder charge, killing the victim.

The mental element refers to the accused’s state of mind at the time the physical element occurred. For example, in a murder charge, the prosecution may need to prove that the accused intended to kill the victim.

If the accused has a mental condition that prevents him from being able to properly form intention, the mental element of the charge would not be made out and he would be acquitted.

Other common mental elements include whether the accused had knowledge of certain facts, or was rash, reckless or negligent.

Which mental element is required is defined by the offence in question. A mental condition that prevents that accused from being able to form the relevant mental element would result in an acquittal.

An extreme version of this is “automatism”: The accused was literally unable to control his actions or was unaware of what he was doing.

For example, if an epileptic lashes out during a fit and hits someone. This is however very rare.

Second, there is a defence of insanity in the Penal Code.

The accused may prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he is of unsound mind. If he does so, he will be acquitted.

This defence is only available where the accused is (i) incapable of knowing the nature of the act, (ii) incapable of knowing what he is doing is wrong or (iii) completely deprived of any power to control his actions.

Insanity is rarely invoked, contrary to popular culture.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, if an accused person committed the offence but is acquitted only because of insanity, he will be confined in a psychiatric institution, prison or other safe place “during the President’s pleasure” — which means for an indefinite duration.

This may be worse for the offender than if he were simply sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment.

Third, for murder charges only, there is a special exception for persons with “diminished responsibility”: Where the offender has an abnormality of mind that substantially impairs his capacity to understand the nature of his acts or whether such acts were wrong, or impairs his power to control his acts.

In such situations, the offender is not entitled to an acquittal, but the charge is downgraded from murder to culpable homicide — meaning the offender is no longer eligible for the death penalty.

For example, in the case of Ahmed Salim, the defence tried to establish diminished responsibility so that the accused could avoid execution.

The accused was convicted of murdering his Indonesian girlfriend in 2018. He had adjustment disorder, which is a recognised mental disorder, but the key issue was whether the disorder substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the killing. 

On appeal, the court found that it did not and the sentence of mandatory death penalty was upheld.

HOW IS MENTAL ILLNESS RELEVANT TO SENTENCING?

A mental condition may not affect conviction at all, if it has no bearing on the offender’s ability to form the required mental element. It may, however, be relevant to sentencing.

The severity of an offender’s sentence is determined primarily by the harm caused by the offence and the offender’s culpability (how responsible he can be held for his offending).

Some mental conditions, like kleptomania (the recurrent urge to steal), may not affect conviction but may reduce the offender’s culpability, thus reducing his sentence.

This is what happened in the case of Goh Lee Yin, a serial shoplifter who suffered from kleptomania. The courts took her condition into account and sentenced her to probation for her first few offences of shoplifting.

Not all mental conditions automatically reduce culpability. There must be some contributory or causal link with the offending conduct.

If the mental condition does not have any relationship to the offending, it does not reduce the offender’s culpability and therefore is irrelevant to sentencing.

For example, kleptomania is likely to be a relevant factor if the accused is charged with theft, but unlikely to be relevant if the accused is charged with murder.

The mental capacity of an accused person is therefore a key issue and this is why courts are willing to put proceedings on hold until an accused person suspected of mental issues can be properly examined by medical experts.

It is a matter of fundamental fairness that people are punished only for that for which they are responsible.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Alexander Woon is a lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences’ School of Law and practises law as Of Counsel at RHTLaw Asia. He was formerly a deputy public prosecutor at the Attorney-General's Chambers.