Those who jump bail could be jailed up to three years and fined

SINGAPORE – Criminal suspects and offenders who jump bail could be jailed up to three years and fined under proposed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code that will make absconding an offence.

Ditto, for persons whose travel documents have been impounded by investigators and who leave the jurisdiction without permission.

The proposed penalty was revealed in the wide-ranging Criminal Justice Reform Bill tabled in Parliament on Wednesday (Feb 28), after Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said last week that provisions and conditions for posting bail would be tightened.

“It may come as a surprise to many that jumping bail is not in itself an offence, because you’ve put up bail and you lose your bail. But we’re going to make that an offence,” Mr Shanmugam had said.

His comments were made after former City Harvest Church fund manager Chew Eng Han was caught trying to skip town in a small boat from Pulau Ubin jetty while out on bail last Wednesday (Feb 21).

Under proposed changes to the criminal justice framework, the courts will also be able to order electronic tagging as a condition for bail.

The courts’ powers when it comes to bail and personal bonds will be enhanced. Judges will be allowed to impose bail – where a surety puts up his own money to bail the accused or offender out, and is responsible for ensuring the attendance of the accused in court – and a personal bond concurrently.

If the prosecution is applying to the High Court for a review of bail or bond for a non-bailable offence, the court will be required to halt any granting of bail or bond.

Under the proposed amendments, sureties who agree to be indemnified when a person jumps bail will also be committing an offence. And a co-accused will not be allowed to be surety for an accused in the same criminal matter.

More offences – such as cheating, those involving false evidence and offences against public justice – will be made “non-bailable”, which means an accused has to convince the courts why he or she should be granted bail. This brings cheating in line with the treatment of other offences that carry similar penalties.

For “bailable offences”, the courts will have the discretion to withhold bail if the offence carries a jail term and there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused would abscond. But judges will have to grant bail to accused persons who are facing offences punishable with only a fine.

Questions surrounding bailable and non-bailable offences have been raised in the High Court in recent years. In a high-profile case in 2014, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon revoked former tour guide Yang Yin’s bail after he found that the district judge had not appeared to take into account the fact that charges faced by Yang were non-bailable.

CJ Menon said the district judge had disregarded the fact that the bail money was going to come from Yang’s parents in China and not his Singaporean bailor. The source of funds for bail is material and should motivate bailors to take active steps to ensure that accused persons do not flee the country, he had said. Yang was found guilty of cheating a wealthy widow, immigration offences and falsification of receipts.

Besides changes to the bail regime, other proposed reforms to the Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act include video-recorded interviews of suspects and victims of certain offences. The changes will also improve protection for alleged victims of sexual offences or child abuse, such as allowing them to testify behind a physical screen so they do not have to face the accused.

The Bills will be debated during a second reading in Parliament on Mar 15 or later.