Explainer: Is there any time limit on criminal charges?

Recently, a man who had fled to Malaysia for 14 years returned to Singapore and pleaded guilty to crimes he committed over a decade ago.

Mr Haron Ismail pleaded guilty to three charges related to housebreaking, for serving as a getaway driver in a series of office break-ins and robberies dating back to 2002.

He had returned to Singapore in 2017 and surrendered himself to the authorities.

This may come as a surprise to some, who may be wondering whether there is any time limit on criminal charges in Singapore.

Some overseas jurisdictions, such as the United States and Australia, impose limitations on the bringing of criminal charges, so that an accused person does not end up having to defend themselves against accusations that are so far in the past that it would be nearly impossible for them to do so effectively.

There is no such concept in Singapore. Criminal charges do not expire and may be brought at any time, at the discretion of the Public Prosecutor, who is the Attorney-General.

The usual safeguards apply, that is, the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

The lapse in time may actually work against the prosecution as witnesses and evidence may no longer be readily available. It is important to note that the accused need prove nothing, only raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

LIMITATION PERIODS IN SINGAPORE LAW

There are limitation periods in Singapore law, just that they are not applicable to criminal law.

For example, in civil disputes, there are usually limitation periods to provide some finality to the dispute. These limitations are usually found in Acts of Parliament, also known as statutes, such as the Limitation Act 1959.

In general, actions in tort (which means civil wrongs like negligence) or contract (which means breaking of a binding legal agreement) cannot be brought more than six years after the incident which gives rise to the claim (known as the cause of action).

Note there may be variations to this general rule and it is the job of a lawyer to make sure their client’s case adheres to the relevant limitation periods.

Given the nature and seriousness of criminal cases though, it is not appropriate that offenders should be able to get away with criminal conduct simply because they have managed to escape the law for a long period of time. This is why there is no limitation on criminal cases.

However, if there is an unexplained and unnecessary delay in prosecution which is not due to the accused’s fault, the court may take that into account when sentencing the accused, out of a sense of basic fairness.

WHAT WOULD THE ACCUSED BE CHARGED WITH?

The accused would be charged under whatever law would have been applicable at the time of the offence. He would not be charged under the current law, since the law that he broke was the one that was in force at the time he committed the offence.

It would not be fair to hold him responsible for breaking laws that did not exist at that time — the law might have changed or penalties might have increased since then.

Therefore, Mr Haron would have been charged with the version of house breaking offences that existed at the time of his offending conduct in 2002.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE ACCUSED'S LONG ABSENCE FROM SINGAPORE?

Generally, fleeing jurisdiction is seen as an aggravating factor when sentencing the accused. This means that the judge is likely to increase the sentence.

Fleeing jurisdiction is generally taken to show lack of remorse. It is also frowned upon as it deliberately frustrates the working of the justice system. It is therefore a serious aggravating factor, and the longer the accused stays away, the more aggravating it would be.

It is now also an offence to “jump bail”, which means to leave jurisdiction when you are on bail — that is, having had someone put up a sum of money as a guarantee that you will turn up for your next court offence.

This new offence was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code in 2018, after City Harvest Church fund manager Chew Eng Han was caught trying to leave town by boat after his conviction by a court.

Surprisingly, before 2018, it was not an offence to jump bail. Therefore, Mr Haron cannot be charged for jumping bail, since the offence did not exist in 2003 when he left Singapore.

Finally, the fact that Mr Haron voluntarily turned himself in may be taken as a mitigating factor — that is, something that reduces his sentence. This is because it shows genuine remorse.

The judge would have weighed these aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence.

It is not common for accused persons to return once they have successfully escaped jurisdiction, though it does occasionally happen.

For example, ex-Member of Parliament Phey Yew Kok returned to Singapore and was convicted of charges of criminal breach of trust, abetment of provision of false evidence to a public servant, and failing to attend court, in 2016. He had been absent from Singapore since 1979.

In such cases, it is important for the justice system to send the signal that justice, though delayed, is not ultimately denied.

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.