News

Oral answer by DPM S Jayakumar on 16 July 2007 to Parlimentary questions on caning incident 
Posted on Monday, July 16, 2007 - 08:00 PM

Law Minister S Jayakumar told Parliament that the Chief Justice expressed deep concern over the recent case where a prisoner was mistakenly given extra strokes of the cane. The Chief Justice feels such mistakes may affect Singapore's excellent reputation and standing of the judicial system. The Courts are also considering automating processes with built-in checks to ensure such errors do not recur.

------------

The Minister's reply is as follows:-

Mr Speaker, with your permission, can I take this and the next question as I believe they are related. Thank you.

2. I will first answer Ms Sylvia Lim's question which is a general question - which is - what is the Government's approach in taking responsibility for clerical or administrative mistakes made in the administration of justice, that result in unnecessary or excessive punishment.

3. Sir, in answer to that question let me say that it is clear that there can only be one approach to that situation. When such a mistake has indeed occurred, the Government must of course accept responsibility. Each and every mistake must be taken seriously - we cause an investigation, identify the causes and take remedial actions to ensure it does not recur. Indeed this has been the approach we have taken. And where compensation is due, the Government will be prepared to offer reasonable compensation. In short, we take responsibility, and put it right.

4. Let me now turn to Mr Hri Kumar's question. His specific question is about the case involving Mr Dickson Tan, which has been the subject of some media publicity. First part of his question is - how did the error occur?

5. Mr Dickson Tan was charged with four counts of abetting an unlicensed moneylender to harass a debtor. He pleaded guilty to two of the charges, was convicted and sentenced on 28 Feb 07 to 3 months imprisonment and 2 strokes caning for one charge and 6 months imprisonment and 3 strokes caning for the 2nd charge, that is a total of 9 months imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane, as the sentences are to run consecutively. The two remaining charges were taken into consideration. There is no dispute that the sentence was legally correct. It was pronounced in open court and recorded accurately in the case file and notes.

6. The error occurred at the stage when transcribing the sentence from the case file onto the Warrant of Commitment. The Warrant of Commitment notifies the Prisons Department the sentence that was passed on the offender. When preparing the Warrant, the Court Clerk erroneously entered the sentence for the 2nd charge as 6 months imprisonment and 6 strokes of caning instead of 3 strokes, thereby giving rise to eight strokes of the cane, instead of a total of five strokes. Unfortunately, the sentencing District Judge also did not spot the error when he signed off on the Warrant.

7. The caning sentence was administered to Mr Dickson Tan on 29 March. The Court Clerk who prepared the Warrant became aware of the error on 2 April following an enquiry from a member of Mr Tan's family. The Court Clerk then alerted the District Judge, who in turn reported the matter to the Senior District Judge.

8. The second part of Mr Hri Kumar's question asks what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the same or similar errors.

9. Before answering that, let me add that when the matter was brought to the attention of the Senior District Judge, he took the matter seriously and immediately directed investigations to be carried out.

10. Those investigations revealed how the error had arisen, which I have explained. In the course of the investigations, statements were obtained from the Court Clerk as well as the District Judge.

11. The Court Clerk in his statement admitted his mistake and apologised. The Court Clerk expressed his remorse over the incident and asked to resign on 12 April. The Subordinate Courts considered instituting disciplinary proceedings against the Court Clerk but after considering his overall performance record in the Court which was good, and that this was his first mistake which was not wilful, allowed him to resign.

12. Mr Speaker Sir, I understand from the Courts that the primary responsibility for preparing a Warrant of Commitment lies with the Court Clerk. Unfortunately the District Judge who signed off on the Warrant did not detect the error. The Chief Justice has directed that the District Judge be formally cautioned and that after he has cleared his outstanding criminal cases, he would be taken off judicial work which involves the signing of Warrants of Commitment.

13. Mr Speaker Sir, let me inform the House that the Chief Justice has himself looked into this matter. He has written to the Senior District Judge to express "deep concern" about what happened in this case and to impress upon the Subordinate Courts' Judges and Court Officers the seriousness with which he views avoidable mistakes of this nature. Moreover, notwithstanding that this kind of mistake was a rare occurrence, the Chief Justice has said that he takes this seriously as it may affect the excellent reputation and standing of our legal and judicial systems which have taken many years to build up. The Chief Justice has directed a review of all administrative procedures within the Courts so as to put in place a system to avoid mistakes of this nature in the future.

14. The Chief Justice has also directed that the Courts to work with the relevant agencies - Prisons, Police and the Attorney-General's Chambers to ensure that a comprehensive system of checks by all agencies is put in place to prevent mistakes of this nature. All these are now being done.

15. I understand that the Subordinate Courts have already taken additional steps and refined their checklists. For example, Warrants of Commitment will now be checked twice at both levels, by another Court Clerk not involved in the preparation of the Warrant, and by a second District Judge.

16. The Courts are also considering automating the process of preparation of Warrants of Commitment with built in system checks so that such errors do not recur.

17. Mr Speaker Sir, let me end by putting this matter in perspective. The Subordinate Courts deal with some 200,000 criminal cases every year, some involving sentences of imprisonment, some involving fines, some involving caning, and some involving a combination of these sentences. So, bearing in mind 200,000 cases a year, this kind of clerical mistake is an extremely rare occurrence. But as I have said publicly, even if these mistakes are rare, even if there is only one case, it is one case too many. We have to put it right and ensure it does not recur. I think that is the way, Sir, to uphold and strengthen the hard won reputation of our legal system for integrity and justice, which we have built up over many years. I know that this is also the attitude of the Chief Justice, the Senior District Judge and other members of the Judiciary. Measures have been put in place to strengthen the system and to ensure this sort of mistake do not recur.