Proposed harsher sentencing does not mean all high-risk offenders will be detained for life: Shanmugam

SINGAPORE: A proposed harsher sentencing option for high-risk offenders could lead to such criminals being released earlier, provided they are no longer a danger to the public, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.

Speaking to reporters last Monday (Jan 22), Mr Shanmugam sought to clarify some misunderstandings and aspects of a new Bill that was tabled in parliament earlier this month.

If the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is passed, dangerous offenders who commit serious crimes – like rape or culpable homicide – could be detained indefinitely.

Under the proposed regime, the courts will be able to mete out a Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection – or SEPP – to these offenders. This takes the form of a minimum jail term of five to 20 years. 

Those who receive an SEPP will only be released from prison if the Minister for Home Affairs finds they no longer pose a threat to the public.

Currently, such offenders must be automatically released after a certain point regardless of the threat they pose to others.

HOW SEPP WORKS

Mr Shanmugam addressed concerns that offenders sentenced to an SEPP could be detained for life, or at least much longer than they would currently be.

He said this was not a “clear understanding” of how SEPP works.

Some people could end up being detained for longer, if they show a lack of rehabilitation and continue posing a serious risk after serving their minimum sentences. But it is “also likely” that “some will be detained for a shorter period”, said Mr Shanmugam.

He made reference to a man who was sentenced to 29-and-a-half years’ jail and the maximum 24 strokes of the cane on Jan 11 for repeatedly raping his niece over a four-year period. He gave the girl a sexually transmitted disease, body-shamed her until she developed an eating disorder, and was caught with 12,000 child sexual abuse images.

Mr Shanmugam noted that if such an offender is released and subsequently abuses another girl, “the courts will say this guy is a monster and I better put him away for a very long time”.

“Because the judge doesn’t know whether (a jail sentence of) 10 years is safe, or eight years is safe, he might say: I better put in a much longer sentence based on the court’s assessment upfront at the time of sentencing, even though that assessment may not be accurate at the time he is to be released.”

But a judge with the option of meting out an SEPP would have “greater clarity and greater peace of mind because he can enforce what he thinks is a shorter sentence – at least, a certain minimum duration”, added Mr Shanmugam.

"(The judge) doesn't need to go for a much longer sentence, knowing that at the end of that minimum duration, the offender can be released depending on whether he has rehabilitated or if experts will assess whether he's still at risk," said the minister.

"If they assess that he's a risk, he may be kept in longer, and therefore the court may not need to impose a much longer sentence upfront. So actually, it might provide for people to come out earlier."

During the interview, he also answered a question on whether the SEPP regime is an avenue to override the court’s initial sentence, and whether the courts – rather than the Home Affairs Minister – should decide on any further detention.

Mr Shanmugam called this a “misunderstanding”.

He reiterated that from the outset, the courts will decide whether to impose an SEPP or “normal imprisonment”. In doing so, judges will consider factors like risk assessment reports by the Institute of Mental Health and other experts.

When an offender completes their minimum jail term, they will be assessed by experts such as psychiatrists and a detention review board to decide what risk they pose to society.

These offenders can also make written representations, either by themselves or through a family member or lawyer, said Mr Shanmugam.

These representations will be reviewed by the Home Affairs Minister who will decide whether they should be released “on licence” – meaning they would have to comply with certain conditions like e-tagging.

They will then be subjected to a review at least every two years and can be unconditionally discharged, bringing the sentence to an end.

“The idea for this is for a fairly small number of dangerous offenders who have committed very serious crimes – we keep you from doing further harm to the rest of society,” said Mr Shanmugam.

He noted that under the existing corrective training and preventive detention regimes, the Minister for Home Affairs can already decide whether offenders should be released on licence before the end of their sentences.

The minister also decides whether someone who was sentenced to life imprisonment can be released on remission.

“So there are examples today, and this is a step along the same lines,” said Mr Shanmugam.

“The question really is: Does this protect the public better? Because (the) government’s key duty is to protect the public.”

POLICE’S POWERS TO SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT

Turning to other features of the Bill, Mr Shanmugam briefly spoke about a proposal to give police officers greater powers to search suspects without a warrant.

For instance, the police will be empowered to conduct a search without a warrant when they have reason to believe that a suspect implicated in an arrestable offence possesses or has power over evidence.

Currently, police officers can only conduct a search without a warrant if they believe a person will not, or is unlikely to, produce the evidence in the face of a production order.

Mr Shanmugam said: “How are we going to know whether someone is likely to cooperate or not beforehand? 

“And if you always need to go and check whether the person is going to cooperate, you actually put the … suspect on notice. You give them time to tamper with evidence.”

The Bill is set to be debated in parliament during next month’s sitting.