M Ravi raises alarm over bill granting police warrantless search powers

On 10 January, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) presented the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2024 for its First Reading in the Singapore Parliament.

This bill, introducing amendments to the key legislation governing Singapore’s criminal justice process, notably grants the police expanded powers to conduct searches without a warrant on individuals suspected of arrestable offences.

Singaporean human rights lawyer, M Ravi, has expressed significant concerns regarding these proposed amendments.

He cautioned that the public may no longer have the right to refuse a search by a police officer, potentially leading to an abuse of power.

Search without warrant

According to a statement issued by MHA, the ministry said the Bill aims to “update and enhance” the powers of the Police and other law enforcement agencies (LEAs), including their powers of arrest, search and investigation.

One significant amendment will allow the Police to conduct a search without warrant when they have reason to believe that the relevant evidence is in the possession or power of a suspect of an arrestable offence.

Currently, a search without a warrant is permitted only if a person is unlikely to produce evidence in response to a production order.

“However, it is not straightforward to accurately determine at the outset that a person will not, or is unlikely to, comply with a production order. ”

Uncooperative suspects can hamper investigations by delaying searches and tampering with evidence, the ministries said.

This will better equip them to combat crime and lead to greater operational efficiency, they added.

“The Police will be empowered to search arrested persons at the point of arrest, to remove dangerous items held by suspects, such as razor blades and needles.”

Under the Bill, obstructing a police officer from conducting a lawful search will become an arrestable offence, with potential penalties of up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to S$5,000 (US$3,750), or both.

Corporate entities convicted of the offence could face fines of up to S$10,000.

Additionally, the proposed amendments in the Bill extend the powers of various law enforcement agencies, including the Central Narcotics Bureau and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, to address matters related to offences within their jurisdiction.

For instance, these agencies will gain the authority to re-arrest individuals who have escaped from their custody. They will also be empowered to investigate offenses related to bail and absconding.

This expanded mandate ensures that the relevant agencies can take necessary actions in response to specific cases, allowing them to conduct arrests or investigations with a thorough understanding of the details involved.

Forensic medical examination

The amendments also aimed to enhance public safety by fortifying authorities’ capabilities to combat crime, particularly serious sexual offences, and to improve the overall efficiency of the country’s criminal court processes.

If the bill is successfully passed in parliament, the police will gain the authority to mandate forensic medical examinations for accused individuals when deemed relevant, involving procedures such as DNA swabs or blood samples.

Refusal to comply without reasonable excuse will be deemed an offence, and the bill outlines the suggested penalties for non-compliance.

In addition, the ministries are advocating for a new and more stringent sentencing option, Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP), specifically tailored for dangerous offenders convicted of violent or sexual crimes.

This includes the introduction of minimum jail terms and the potential for detention beyond the usual prison term, extending to life imprisonment.

Offenders sentenced to SEPP will not be automatically released at any point but will only be released if found suitable after a minimum term of between 5 and 20 years, as determined by the court.

SEPP will apply to offenders convicted of serious violent or sexual offences such as culpable homicide, rape, and sexual penetration of minors.

The bill, encompassing these crucial reforms, is slated for debate in the parliamentary session scheduled for a later date.

M Ravi raises concern over the proposed amendments

On Tuesday (16 January), Mr Ravi in a Facebook post expressed concern about the CPC amendments, suggesting that the new bill could create an environment conducive to potential abuse of power by law enforcement officers.

To illustrate his point, he employed two fictional characters: Sgt Teh, representing a police officer, and Mr Mohan, symbolizing an ordinary civilian.

Presently, an officer requires a court order to search a house even after making an arrest. While officers may order a search without a warrant if they believe the suspect is unlikely to comply with a court order, Mr Ravi pointed out that this practice is infrequent.

He warned that the new Bill will allow Sgt Teh to search Mr Mohan if he believes that he has committed an arrestable offence.

“In Singapore, civilians currently have no enshrined right to refuse arrest by police officers who are behaving illegally. ”

“While the new law does not legally enable Sgt Teh to arbitrarily search Mr Mohan’s house, practically speaking, it tells Mr Mohan that he has no right to refuse an arrest and home search if Sgt Teh orders one.”

Under the present procedure, if an officer goes to a civilian house and wants to conduct a “search”, the civilian can always reply, “You got a warrant?”

Even if the officer makes an immediate arrest, a court order is still needed to search the house, explained Mr Ravi.

” If Sgt Teh just shows up and tells Mr Mohan that he’s suspected of a crime and unlikely to produce evidence, the innocent Mr Mohan may be skeptical and uncooperative. ”

He also expressed concern about the potential for the new powers granted to police officers to be used for self-serving purposes.

“In a perfect world with multiple uncooperative, guilty suspects and no corrupt police officers, this would be an ideal law. ”

However, he highlighted that over the past five years, instances of officers abusing their power under the guise of the law have been observed.

He suggested that in a world where officers may misuse their authority, driven by factors like rising costs of living and financial pressures, the law could potentially enable unlawful searches in the future.

He anticipated scenarios where individuals might be unaware that a police officer conducted an illegal search and seized items without proper documentation.