SINGAPORE — An alleged assault during an incident involving a drag performer at Marina Bay Sands last Sunday (March 10) raised some eyebrows when it came to light that such an offence is treated as "non-arrestable".

The drag performer said in social media posts that she had been told by police that the alleged assault was not an arrestable offence, adding that she was advised by them to "pursue the matter". 

The police told TODAY at the time that the incident was “a case of voluntarily causing hurt”.

Voluntarily causing hurt is not an arrestable offence in Singapore unless certain added factors are involved such as the use of a dangerous weapon, or where the victim is an on-duty public servant. 

Some online users have wondered why this particular case of alleged voluntarily causing hurt was considered to be non-arrestable since there was some indication of injuries being sustained.

TODAY spoke to legal experts to find out why voluntarily causing hurt is a non-arrestable offence, how victims may seek recourse and what forms of voluntarily causing hurt are arrestable. 

WHAT IS AN ARRESTABLE OFFENCE AND WHAT ISN’T? 

Mr Alexander Woon, a law lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), said that in general, a serious offence is arrestable whereas more minor offences are not.

However, whether a case is “serious” or “minor” is often subjective and so, this is decided in Parliament when laws are passed. 

“It is up to Parliament to determine which offences should be arrestable and non-arrestable; any change would have to be made via an amendment to the statute,” he added. 

Some of the reasons for an offence to be arrestable are obvious, for example, when it comes to crimes such as murder. 

However, for other offences where it is not obvious why they are considered arrestable, one would have to look back at what was debated in Parliament when the decision was made. 

“It's not obvious to me, for example, why theft should be arrestable but voluntarily causing hurt is not,” Mr Woon said.

“I don't think there is a clear line, so we would have to research parliamentary intention for each specific offence.” 

Under the Penal Code, arrestable offences include driving rashly or negligently, rape, theft and robbery, criminal trespass, and acts or attempts that cause or can cause death, including murder, abetting suicide and rash acts. 

Other than voluntarily causing hurt, non-arrestable offences under the Penal Code include:

• Defamation
• Communicating with someone for the purpose of commercial sex or sexual touching involving a minor under 18 years old
• Causing a miscarriage 
• Knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant

For legislation outside of the Penal Code, such as the Misuse of Drugs Act or Public Order Act, non-arrestable offences are those that are punishable with less than three years' jail or with only a fine.

Legal service site Singapore Legal Advice states that when the police arrive at the scene of an alleged crime, they will have to first assess the situation and determine if an arrestable offence has been committed. 

If it has, or the police reasonably suspect that an arrestable offence has been committed, they are empowered to arrest the alleged offender without a warrant.

If the offence appears to be non-arrestable, then the police cannot arrest the alleged offender, and would need a warrant should they wish to effect an arrest.

An arrest warrant is an official document issued by a judge or magistrate authorising law enforcement personnel to arrest and detain a person suspected of committing a crime.

WHY VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT IS NON-ARRESTABLE

Singapore Legal Advices' website states that voluntarily causing hurt is committed when a person does an act that causes hurt to a person while intending to do so, or knowing that he is likely to cause hurt to the person. 

Hurt is defined by the Penal Code as any kind of bodily pain, disease or infirmity, and can range from the stinging pain of a slap or more serious injuries such as bruised ribs. 

Hurt may also include psychological wounds such as the psychological trauma of vulnerable victims after a weapon is pointed at them. 

Associate Professor Mervyn Cheong, from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and law firm Advocatus Law LLP, said that voluntarily causing hurt is a non-arrestable offence because these cases of hurt are “too varied”. 

“It can vary from a slap to punches and so, the harm caused cannot be seen immediately… The scale of seriousness is therefore too wide-ranging for it to be, by default, an arrestable offence.”  

However, there are other forms of causing hurt, including voluntarily causing hurt, that are arrestable such as: 

• Voluntarily causing grievous hurt, where forms of grievous hurt include fractures, dislocations, permanent disfigurement to the head or face, and even death
• Voluntarily causing hurt that causes grievous hurt, where the offender intended to cause hurt to the victim, but unintentionally caused grievous hurt
• Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means such as with knives, axes, explosive substances and even dangerous animals
• Voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty, where such public servants include the police, prison officers, judicial officers and government officials

Mr Chen Yongxin, a disputes lawyer at law firm Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, said that such crimes are clearly more serious than voluntarily causing hurt. 

For instance, voluntarily causing hurt by means of a dangerous weapon is regarded as a more serious offence given the offender’s greater culpability in the sense of his motivation or premeditation, and the greater level of potential harm that could result.

As for voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty, "the consideration is that public servants should be afforded greater protection in the discharge of their duties", Mr Chen added. 

WHAT CAN VICTIMS DO TO SEEK RECOURSE? 

Assoc Prof Cheong from NUS said that even though an offence such as voluntarily causing hurt is non-arrestable, it does not mean that the perpetrator cannot be charged and punished.

“The alleged victim should consider filing a police report, or file a magistrate's complaint so that the authorities would be prompted to consider taking action against the alleged perpetrator.” 

Mr Woon from SUSS said that the police may also decide to investigate the matter, as they have done in the case of the alleged assault at Marina Bay Sands. 

At the same time, the police may also refer the complainant to a magistrate to make a magistrate’s complaint, or refer the complainant for mediation. 

A magistrate's complaint is a legal process allowing people to initiate criminal proceedings against others for certain offences through a formal complaint filed with the Magistrate's Court.

A Magistrate's Court is a lower court in the judicial system that deals with less serious criminal cases, civil matters and certain family law issues. 

When making a magistrate’s complaint, alleged victims should, if they can, produce evidence such as video evidence of what transpired, Assoc Prof Cheong said.

If there are eyewitnesses and their names can be provided, this would be helpful as well. 

Should there be evidence for the authorities to investigate further, the suspect will be required to show up at the police station and give a statement to explain what happened. 

If the suspect refuses to attend and assist with investigations, he may be arrested.

If found guilty of committing voluntarily causing hurt, offenders can face up to three years' jail or a fine up to S$5,000, or both.

COULD THERE BE FUTURE CHANGES TO HOW SUCH CASES ARE INVESTIGATED? 

There may be upcoming changes to how voluntarily causing hurt offences are investigated. 

These will fall under proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code under the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill, that was tabled in Parliament earlier this month.

Under the changes, the police may decide not to take action in cases of non-arrestable offences, if they have reason to believe that the case is not of a serious nature or there are insufficient grounds to proceed with the matter.

Currently, when a non-arrestable offence is reported, the police will need to either investigate or refer the informant to a magistrate or the Community Meditation Centre even if the case meets the above criteria, which the authorities have said, is not a good use of public resources. 

Agreeing with this move, Mr Chen from Eugene Thuraisingam LLP said that the above process can prove to be a waste of resources especially for “trivial cases”. 

He gave the example of a case where a person makes a police report against someone for a single instance of possibly accidental littering — which would not be a worthy use of police resources. 

“The change, which frees up state resources, would allow the police to dedicate greater resources to investigate cases of greater gravity,” Mr Chen added.  

“This would ultimately make it easier for more serious offenders to be caught and charged for the crime.” 

Assoc Prof Cheong from NUS said that even if the police do not investigate, the victim can still file a magistrate’s complaint, or consider suing the other party for compensation.

“These processes, though, can be difficult for a victim to navigate without the assistance of a lawyer, and the victim will have to use their own resources to engage a lawyer to help with it,” he added.