‘Less intimidating approach’ should have been taken in Benjamin Lim case: Law Society President

SINGAPORE — The President of the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) has weighed in on the debate sparked by the death of a 14-year-old boy after he had been taken in for questioning, saying the police should have taken a “less intimidating way” of approaching the investigation.

Mr Thio Shen Yi also delved into the arguments for speeding up accused persons’ access to counsel, particularly for minors, in his commentary published on Wednesday (Feb 17) in the latest issue of the LawSoc’s official monthly newsletter, Singapore Law Gazette — a move lawyers viewed as symbolic, given that the publication’s circulation reaches all lawyers and various government ministries.

In his 2,000-word article titled Vulnerable Suspects and Access to Counsel, the senior counsel said there is no way to know for certain why Benjamin Lim fell to his death and whether this could have been prevented. But if the death “was avoidable with a better system in place, then it is one death too many”, he said.

“If Benjamin had a lawyer present to give advice during the course of the (police) interview, would things have turned out differently? We will never have certainty, but it is not impossible to imagine a different outcome, and if that is possible, then one more question: How then should we act?”

The teenager, a Secondary Three student, was picked up by five plainclothes officers from his school on Jan 26. After about two hours at Ang Mo Kio Police Division, he was brought home by his mother. Within two hours, he was found dead at the foot of his Yishun block.

Questioning whether it was appropriate that the officers arrested the teenager at school during school hours, Mr Thio said in his commentary on Wednesday that it is “not uncommon” for the police to contact a witness or suspect by phone to set up an interview.

Following the incident, the police said they would be reviewing their procedures on whether to allow an appropriate adult to be present during interviews with young persons. 

About two weeks before the case, Mr Thio had raised the issue of access to counsel, which lawyers had been lobbying for, in his speech at the Opening of the Legal Year. 

On Wednesday, Mr Thio said many on the Bar share his view that “near immediate or, at worst, early access to counsel is a necessity in ensuring sustainable confidence in our criminal justice system”.

He added: “While we accept the need for effective investigations, and that it is a balance between police effectiveness and protection for an accused, this incident forces us to contemplate the potentially catastrophic cost of getting the balance wrong.”

In the aftermath of the case, questions have been raised on why Benjamin’s parents were not allowed to be present for the interview — something that is currently disallowed. 

But Mr Thio noted that a stressful interrogation can extract what the interrogator was looking for, “which may, or may not, be the truth”.

Although Singapore’s laws give a suspect the right to be defended by a lawyer within a “reasonable” time, the crux of the problem is that “the idea of ‘reasonableness’ is elastic”, he said.

 Mr Thio cited the practices in other jurisdictions — India entitles suspects to consult a lawyer during interrogation — and said Singapore is “an outlier in the way we emphasise efficacy (of investigations) over protection (of suspects)”.

Mr Thio also said immediate access to counsel may not be the only viable solution in dealing with young suspects, “though it may be the best one from the Bar’s point of view”.

He added: “It is not just about (the boy). Does the investigative process unintentionally cause avoidable psychological trauma and long-term distress? Does it lead to over-punishment due to confessions which are unameliorated or unmitigated due to lack of knowledge or advice from counsel?”

Commenting on the message, criminal lawyers felt that Mr Thio’s message was timely, and encapsulated the thoughts of many in the field.

“On a personal note, I support what he says,” said Mr Shashi Nathan. “This is a matter that has caused some concern as to how young offenders may be treated by the police. The next step is to see how things will change going forward.”

Noting that Mr Thio had raised the same issue recently, Mr Amolat Singh said: “(It) is the same golden thread that runs consistently through. So when this poor boy’s death happened, it’s very befitting that the LawSoc president should register his very clear views.”

He added: “He could have chosen any other topic that’s less controversial — money matters, corporate issues — but the fact that he chose to speak about this speaks volumes about how this matter is rather 
urgent.”

Mr Singh also commented on the fact that the message was carried in the Law Gazette, which is circulated to a wide audience, including the Law and Home Affairs ministries. 

“The fact that it’s the LawSoc president setting out his message will not be taken lightly or ignored. It is sure to get the attention that it deserves. We can’t ignore that this has become a burning national issue,” he said.

COMPARING INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES IN SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA, INDIA, HONG KONG AND TAIWAN

In his commentary arguing for accused persons to get speedier access to lawyers, Law Society of Singapore president Thio Shen Yi cited the practices in various countries in saying that Singapore “is an outlier in the way we emphasise (investigation) efficacy over protection (of suspects)”. These are the procedures in Singapore and four other countries he cited.

SINGAPORE

Following arrest, a suspect can be detained for up to 48 hours. During this time, he can request to call his family or a lawyer to inform them of his arrest. He can also ask for visits by the family or the lawyer. These requests may be turned down if the police deem that it will interfere with their investigation. For any detention beyond 48 hours, the police must bring the suspect to court, and allow the judge to decide if further remand is warranted.

MALAYSIA

The police must inform the suspect of his right to counsel before questioning or statement recording takes place. The suspect must be allowed to consult a lawyer or attempt to consult one “as soon as may be”, and questioning or statement recording can only take place “a reasonable time” after such communications have been established.

INDIA

A suspect has the right to meet, communicate and consult his lawyer during interrogation, although not for the entire process.

HONG KONG

A suspect must be given a chance to seek legal representation. A senior police officer may delay this if he has reasonable grounds to believe that such access may interfere with investigations. Such delays are capped at 48 hours after arrest, at which point the suspect must be charged or brought before a magistrate. A suspect has the right to a lawyer from this point.

TAIWAN

A suspect has to be informed that he can retain a defence lawyer during an interview. Police must wait four hours for the counsel to appear, and during this time, no interrogation should take place. Failure to comply has led to confessions made during this timeframe being excluded from evidence. The Code of Criminal Procedure states that the maximum period of detention is 24 hours.