Source: https://learn.asialawnetwork.com/2019/07/10/smu-lexicon-busting-myths-understanding-prosecutorial-discretion/
Timestamp: 2019-09-19 14:07:23
Document Index: 103332067

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 12', 'Art 35', 'Art 35', 'Art 35', 'Art 35', 'Art 35']

SMU Lexicon: Busting Myths: Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion - Asia Law Network Blog
Emily Tan July 10, 2019 0 0
Defining “prosecutorial discretion”
Myth 1: The Prosecution can simply decide to charge a person for no good reason
“the use of that process for a purpose for which it is not intended, ie, to prosecute an offender for some other ulterior motive and not to punish him for an offence which he has committed.”[27] [emphasis added]
For instance, using prosecutorial discretion to harass a defendant would be such an abuse of power.[28] The purpose of the criminal process is the “bona fide prosecution of criminals”,[29] and prosecution may only be undertaken to “punish an offender for an offence he has committed” [emphasis added].[30]
Prosecutorial discretion may not contravene constitutional protections and rights, such as those found in Part IV of the Singapore Constitution. For instance, Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General (“Ramalingam”) considered “the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the law” under Art 12 of the Constitution.[31] To not contravene this right, prosecutorial discretion requires unbiased consideration of each case where “[i]n general, like cases must be treated alike”.[32] Thus, biased and irrelevant considerations cannot be involved in the exercise of prosecutorial powers.[33]
Myth 2: The Prosecution represents the interests of victims
Another common myth is that the Public Prosecutor represents the interests of the victims.[40] This is inaccurate. Criminal prosecutions are brought, not to further the private interests of the victim, but to further the larger public interest.[41]
Proceedings are conducted according to the values expected by the public; and
Action is taken in the eye of the public.[44]
Myth 3: Public interest prosecution means that the Prosecution should follow public opinion
Myth 4: You have been determined to be guilty once you are charged
[1] Ng Hui Wen, “Death of Annie Ee: AGC Explains Why Couple Who Abused Her Were Not Charged with Murder”, The Straits Times (18 December 2017) <http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/death-of-annie-ee-agc-explains-why-couple-who-abused-her-were-not-charged-with-murder> (accessed 27 January 2018).
[3] Opening of the Legal Year 2018: Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. <https://www.agc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/newsroom-doucments/Speeches/ag’s-oly-speech-(finalised).pdf?sfvrsn=0> (accessed 1 May 2018) (“OLY Speech 2018”).
[4] Change.org petition <https://www.change.org/p/appeal-for-harsher-sentence-singaporean-couple-abuses-intellectually-disabled-woman-to-death> (accessed 30 April 2018).
[6] See also AGC website – Overview of Functions <https://www.agc.gov.sg/our-roles/public-prosecutor/public-prosecutor-overview-of-functions> (last accessed 1 May 2018): It was stated that “AGC officers in the Criminal Justice and Technology Crime Division act as Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) and Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) under the authority of the Public Prosecutor. The Criminal Justice Division is responsible for all criminal prosecutions except those relating to financial and technology offences, which come under the purview of the Financial and Technology Crime Division.”
[8] Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint) Art 35(8). The Attorney-General (AG) is an executive office as set out by the Constitution at Art 35. He or she is conferred the power of prosecutorial discretion under Art 35(8) and thus acts in the capacity of the Public Prosecutor. See also PP v Lim Choon Teck [2015] 5 SLR 1395 (“Lim Choon Teck”) at [76].
[9] See Goh Yihan & Paul Tan, Singapore Law: 50 years in the making (Singapore Academy Publishing, 2015) at p 428.
[11] Public prosecution is carried out in the United States of America by the United States Attorneys and in the United Kingdom by the Crown Prosecution Service. See generally the official website for the Offices of the United States Attorneys <https://www.justice.gov/usao/mission> and the official website for the Crown Prosecution Service <https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps>.
[12] See Part I of the main text.
[15] See AGC website – Overview of Functions, supra n 6; see also Criminal Procedure Code at s 11(3) – (5).
[17] See Vijayan, supra n 5; see also PP v Knight Glenn Jeyasingam [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1165 (“Glenn”) at [70]. The High Court in Glenn held that the judiciary’s decision-making power “to affect whatever concerns the administration of justice” was “circumscribed only to the extent that Art 35(8) vests prosecutorial discretion in the AGC”. See also Phyllis, supra n 10, at [145]. The position in Glenn has been regarded as subordinating the judicial power of review to prosecutorial discretion. However, the writer is doubtful if this is an accurate portrayal of the case, as the court in Glenn did specify that judicial power would only be circumscribed to the discretion as granted under Art 35(8) of the Constitution, that it is a discretion almost inviolable, and finally that the judiciary still has “a wider responsibility in the administration of justice involving decision-making”.
[40] This is an issue which has been highlighted as an important point in “Prosecution in the Public Interest” <https://www.agc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/singapore-law-review-annual-lecture-2017—prosecuting-in-the-public-interest.pdf?sfvrsn=0> (accessed 1 May 2018). In this speech, AG Wong clarified that criminal prosecutions are not meant to further the private interests of victims, but to further the larger public interest.
[43] The Attorney-General’s Chambers: The Code of Practice for the Conduct of Criminal Proceedings by the Prosecution and the Defence <https://www.agc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/newsroom-doucments/media-releases/2013/code-of-practice-for-the-conduct-of-criminal-proceedings—final.pdf?sfvrsn=2> (accessed 27 January 2018) at p 5.
[45] “Prosecution in the Public Interest”, supra n 40 at [22]–[26].
[46] See Part I of the main text.
[51] Lim Choon Teck, supra n 8, at [1]. See also “Prosecution in the Public Interest”, supra n 40, at [62]–[63].
[54] OLY Speech 2018, supra n 3, at [24].
[56] Ibid; see also Part I of the main text.
[57] OLY Speech 2018, supra n 3, at [23].
[61] OLY Speech 2018, supra n 3, at [24].
[63] See Vijayan, supra n 5.
[69] See Part II of the main text.
[70] See Part IV of the main text.
[71] See Part IV of the main text.
[72] See Part III of the main text.
[73] See Part VI of the main text.
[74] See Part IV of the main text.
Authors: Emily Tan Shu Min, student at Singapore Management University School of Law (Class of 2020). This article was originally published on 26 May 2018 on SMU Lexicon.
Tags prosecution prosecutorial discretion smu lexicon