CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)

Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL 1

QUESTION 1

Q1 (a) Whether lawful for W to arrest and search B1

 W is a private person – look at the rights of a private person to arrest.

 This is a case of a private arrest. There are 2 situations in which a private arrest can be
made and this is one of them
 In s 34 (1), it is provided that any private person may arrest any person who in his view
commits a non-bailable and seizable offence, and shall, without unnecessary delay,
hand over the person so arrested to the nearest police office or, in the absence of a police
officer, take that person to the nearest police station.
 Any follow up action should be taken by the police.

Seizable AND non-bailable offence?

 Offence is under s 392 of the Penal Code

 Seizable? – YES
o CPC s 2. "seizable offence" means an offence for which and “seizable case” means
a case in which a police officer may ordinarily arrest without warrant according to the
third column of Schedule A
o Schedule A, 3rd column: police may arrest without warrant.

 Non-bailable? – YES
o Under CPC Schedule A, 5th column: offence is non-bailable.

“In his view”

 Must the private person actually witness the commission of an offence? Is it sufficient if he
forms a reasonable opinion that the offence was committed by the suspect?
 Kartar Singh: Offence has to be “within sight” (note: later amendments made to the Indian
CPC requires it to be “in his presence”, i.e. sight no longer a requirement)
 Mesran (Golden Mile) Pte Ltd v Paul Chua Wah Liang: In private prosecution, theft must
be committed in sight of private person before arrest is lawful
 *PP v Sam Hong Choy: “in his view” covers situation where one does not actually see the
offence being committed, but is certain (because he is in close proximity).
 Chee Siok Chin – same test as Sam Hong Choy. Read the case.
 Zainal … reasonable suspicion that crime was committed not truth.

 What W saw was B1 running away. He heard V’s shouts, and thus he believed that B1 was
the robber.
 Applying PP v Sam Hong Choy, this can be considered to be “in his view”, as though he
cannot actually see the offence being committed, he can be certain, because he is in close
proximity.
 Although he apprehended the wrong person (B1 instead of B2), it was nevertheless
reasonable for him to assume that B1 was the robber, as he was running away just as W
heard shouts.

Page 1 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

“Without unnecessary delay”

 John Lewis & Co Ltd v Tims: Where a person exercises his common law right of arresting
a person without a warrant, he should take the arrested person before a justice of peace or
a police officer, not necessarily forthwith, but as soon as reasonably possible.
o In the circumstances taking the respondent to the appellants’ office to obtain
authority to prosecute was not an unreasonable delay before handing her over to the
police.

 Applying John Lewis, in the circumstances, W tied B1 up and called for the police to take
them away.
 When police arrived at the scene, W handed over B1 and the drugs to the police.
 This should be considered “without unnecessary delay” as he could have called the police
over because he didn’t think he could haul B1 to the police station alone.
Searching the suspect
 Not allowed to do so.
 29(1) CPC: when a person is arrested by a private person, he must hand the person over to
the police officer, and the police officer will conduct the search. The only way a private
person can conduct a search is if he has a warrant. (s 29(1)(b))
 Note: S 30 CPC allows private person to seize offensive weapons on another person without
a warrant.

THEREFORE, it was lawful for W to arrest B1, but not lawful for W to search B1.

Q1 (b) Whether lawful for Sgt Goh to deny B1 access to a lawyer

 Art 9(3) of the Constitution provides that where a person is arrested, he should be allowed to
consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
 Therefore, yes, he has access to a lawyer.

 “Within a reasonable time after arrest” – question of fact.

Jasbir Singh v PP
 Right does not arise immediately at point of arrest.
 Its exercise must be balanced against duty of the police to protect the public and to be able
to carry out effective investigations.
 2 weeks delay was a reasonable time. (question of fact )

Goh Ah Lim, Tsang Yuk Chang

 Police unlikely to allow lawyers to be around during questioning. If answer to notice is only
given after consideration or consultation with counsel, then any omission in the statement is
considered to be material and an adverse inference may be drawn.
o Test propounded in Tsang Yuk Chang: whether it can be said that the
circumstances existing at the time when the accused was charged with the offence
or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, were such that he could not,
as a result of the non-compliance with s 122(6) of the CPC, be reasonably have
been expected to mention certain facts, which he was going to rely in his defence in

Page 2 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

court.

Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP

 Cannot attribute failure to wanting to consult lawyer first for fear of saying the “wrong things”,
as the purpose of s 123 is to compel the accused to outline his defence immediately upon
being charged, not merely as afterthoughts

UNLESS,
 There was a legitimate reason. (PP v Azman bin Abdullah)

THEREFORE, it is not unlawful for Sgt Goh to deny B1 access to a lawyer.

 Note that the right arises at the moment of arrest, but you can be denied the right for a “reasonable
time”

Q1 (c) What can Sgt Goh do to record W’s statement?

Whether police can compel the witness to come forward to give his statement.

 In the case of seizable cases, police have special powers of investigation.

 S 118 of the CPC provides that a police officer may, without the order of the PP, exercise all
or any of the special powers relating to police investigations given by s 120, 121, 125 and
126 in any seizable case.
 Depends, on what offence is he investigating.

 S 120 enables the police officer to require attendance of witnesses.

o A police officer may, by order in writing, require attendance before himself of any
person being within the limits of Singapore, who from the information given or
otherwise appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case and that
person shall attend as so required, provided that no person shall be required to
attend at any place distant more than 11 km from his usual place of abode.
o If the person fails to attend, warrant to secure attendance may be issued.

 Further, s 121 gives Sgt Goh the power to examine and record W’s statement.
o A police officer making a police investigation under this Chapter may examine orally
any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case and shall reduce into writing any statement made by the person so
examined.

Non-seizable
 Under s 116, can get PP or Magistrate’s order to compel statement.

THEREFORE, Sgt Goh should order, in writing, the attendance of W at a place <11km from
W’s usual place of abode, as he appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case
(because he arrested B1).

Q1 (d)

Page 3 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

 Information received at a police station relating to the commission of an offence of which

no previous information has been received. (Section 115(1) CPC)
 Purpose of FIR is to give information of a cognizable offence to the police so as to set them
in motion. It need not contain elaborate details of the alleged offence, nor is it necessary for
the FIR to disclose the entire case for the prosecution. (PP v Pardeep Singh [1999] 3 SLR
116)

Possible FIRs
 Police officer giving chase?
 W’s call?
 Passer-by calling 999 to say some people are fighting. (But this is BEFORE the commission
of the offence)
o Can this be the basis of B2’s arrest / prosecution?

 The accused person must as of right be given a copy of the FIR so he can be in a position to
defend himself by being acquainted with the facts leading to the initial complaint made
against him. (PP v Mohamed Mus van Amurullah)
 It is a common law right. The defendant has a right as he is a person interested in it and
inspection is necessary for the protection of his interest. (Anthony Gomez v Ketua Police
Daerah Kuantan)
 HOWEVER, in this case, there is no FIR for B2, because he is arrested by the police officer
without anyone making a report.

THEREFORE, NO. FIR in this case is not relevant to B2.

Page 4 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

QUESTION 2

Q2 (A)
 In the case, 2 ecstacy pills + 2 obscene VCDs were found by CNB officers, who searched
Tony’s makeshift stall on a tip off.
 See s 24: allows an officer of the CNB to search a person found in any place or premises in
which controlled drugs or related articles are reasonably suspected to be found.
 S 32(1) Misuse of Drugs Act – Officer of bureau shall have all powers of police officer in the
CPC in relation to seizable offence

 S 25(1) CPC allows a person acting under a warrant of arrest who has reason to believe that
any person to be arrested to search a place.
o NA, search before arrest. Here he is arrested THEN searched.

Searching of persons on premises

 S 26 CPC provides that whenever a search for anything is or is about to be lawfully made in
any house or place in respect of any offence, all persons found in it may be lawfully detained
until the search is completed, and they may, if the thing sought is in its nature capable of
being concealed on the person, be searched for it by or in the presence of a Magistrate or
Justice of the Peace or a police officer not below the rank of sergeant.
 Problem here is the makeshift stall may not be able to be considered a type of “premises”,
as there are no four walls / boundaries.

 S 29(2) CPC: A police officer investigating into a seizable offence in the exercise of his
powers under Chapter XIII may enter the house or other place of abode of any person who
is under arrest in connection with the offence and search such premises for any evidence of
the offence.
 Section applies to “other place of abode”, so the issue is what can be defined as “abode” in
CPC. Not defined in the CPC, so natural meaning used. It suggests that you must be
resident in that place. It is a makeshift stall and not his house, therefore doubtful that this
section can be used.
 IF it can be used, the seizure of the drugs was legal.

Legality of seizure of the obscene VCDs?

 VCDs: 2 types
o Those displayed
o Those in his haversack

S29(1)(b): May place in safe custody all articles other than necessary wearing apparel found on
the person and any of those articles which there is reason to believe were the instruments or the
fruits or other evidences of the crime may be detained until his discharge or acquittal.

 The VCDs from the stall can be argued to not been illegally seized because they were not
found in a search but were openly on display. However, the CNB officers are only authorised
as Police Officers with respect to crimes under the MDA, not the Films Act. That being so,
their seizure of the VCDs was nonetheless illegal. The situation would be different if the
officers seizing the items were police officers

Page 5 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

 Those in his haversack – nothing to do with the crime. Therefore cannot be seized.

 By virtue of s 32, not an offence under the MDA. Therefore, cannot seize. “In relation to
the commission of an offence under this Act…”

Would it make any difference if the officers seizing the items were police officers?
No for the drugs. See Misuse of Drugs Act. CNB officers given the powers of the police officers
under the CPC.

For the obscene VCDs, yes they will be able to seize it by virtue of the Films Act.

* Compare MDA provisions and CPC wrt to this. (For your own interest)

Q2 (B)
 Voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code is a non-seizable offence. One may
not arrest without warrant.
 Therefore, police to obtain a warrant of arrest under s 46 CPC before arresting him.
 Police are not obliged to investigate.

When can police arrest without a warrant?

 See s 32(1) CPC for the 11 instances in which police cannot arrest without a warrant.
 (a): Tan has not been concerned in a seizable offence.
 (b): Tan did not have any implement of housebreaking on him
 (c): Tan has not been proclaimed under s 51.
 (d): Tan did not have in his possession stolen / fraudulently obtained property
 (e): Tan did not obstruct a police officer in the execution of his duty.
 (f): NA, Tan not a deserter
 (g): Did not take precautious to conceal his presence
 (h): not a person who has no ostensible means of subsistence / cannot give satisfactory
account of himself
 (i) not habitual robber etc.
 (j) not committing a habitual breach of the peace (possible)
 (i) has not failed to comply with the requirements of the Code.

 However, possible to argue that he did not furnish his name and address, which warrants
arrest. (s 16(1)(b) National Registration Act). (s 33 CPC – if they didn’t know the identity of
the person, they can detain him for that reason.)
 Police did not ask him for his name and address. However, they can argue that they
recognised Tan and his address is a well-known fact.

QUESTION 3

Q3 (a) Documents to obtain from Police to prepare your client’s defence before a DC

First information report

 Information received at a police station relating to the commission of an offence of which

Page 6 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

no previous information has been received. (Section 115(1) CPC)

 Purpose of FIR is to give information of a cognizable offence ot the police so as to set them
in motion. It need not contain elaborate details of the alleged offence, nor is it necessary for
the FIR to disclose the entire case for the prosecution. (PP v Pardeep Singh [1999] 3 SLR
116)

Statement recorded in accordance with s 122(6) CPC

 s 122(6) CPC: It may be obtained from the Police upon payment of a prescribed fee,
however, it is quite often not available to the Defence, and if so, only on the day of the
hearing or at a pre-trial conference.

S 121 statement
 Defence has no right to this
 Note that other statements except s 122(6) statements.

*Conditioned statements of witnesses

 Conditioned statements of material witnesses

Q3 (b) Whether entitled to FIR

Entitlement to the FIR

 The accused person must as of right be given a copy of the FIR so he can be in a position to
defend himself by being acquainted with the facts leading to the initial complaint made
against him. (PP v Mohamed Musa bin Amurullah)
 It is a common law right. The defendant has a right as he is a person interested in it and
inspection is necessary for the protection of his interest. (Anthony Gomez v Ketua Police
Daerah Kuantan)
 PP v Ramasami – person on a bus badly injured, bus stopped in front of a police station.
Information was given at the station. Subsequently a person also comes to the station, who
is less severely injured, who said he was attacked by the first man. The police had already
started investigating. They asked him whether he attacked the first man. This was
considered statement made in the course of investigation – therefore it was NOT an FIR.
 Look at purpose and intent of FIR, in order to decide whether it is an FIR. If it is NOT an FIR,
it is inadmissible (s 122).
 If it is an FIR, it is admissible, not subject to s 122, because not statement in made in the
course of investigation.
 The part that he complained what happened to him was an FIR, but the part where they
asked him whether he attacked the first man was NOT an FIR

To which FIR?
 To Nosey’s FIR, as the FIR must be relating to the commission of an offence of which no
previous information has been received according to s 115(1) of the CPC.
 When Mary made the report, Nosey had already made a police report so the proper FIR
should be Nosey’s FIR.

Q3 (c) Cross examination of Mary

Page 7 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

Q: I refer you to the statement recorded by Sergeant Deep Singh in your house at 6pm on the
relevant date. You said your husband came home at 5pm. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: When he came back, he said he ran into your ex-boyfriend leaving the house?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was your reply to that?
A: That I was asleep and would not know if anyone had broken into the house.
Q: You then called the police?
A: Yes.
Q: I refer you to the FIR recorded by duty officer Sergeant Deep Singh. Is this the report you
made at 5pm when your husband told you to make a police report?
A: Yes.
Q: If so, can you please confirm that the contents are accurate?
A: Yes they are.
Q: And you told the police that someone had broken into your house and stolen your Dupont
pen and a gold Rolex watch?
A: Yes.
Q: At the end of the statement you also said nothing else was missing?
A: Yes.

Q: M’am, are you acquainted with the accused Mr Krishnan?

A: (If no.)
Q: I would like to reconfirm with you that when your husband came home at 5pm, he confronted
you if your ex-boyfriend had been to the house earlier today, which you have earlier admitted to.
A:
Q: Did you give a collection of rare Straits Settlements coins, a pearl necklace and 2 gold rings
to the accused as a token of your love to him?

I put it to you that Krishnan had visited you at 4pm that afternoon, and that you gave him
a pearl necklace and 2 gold rings, and thus he did not commit the offence of
housebreaking.

I put it to you that you had given Krishnan the Straits Settlements coins at an earlier date,
and that he had not stolen them.

I put it to you that the Dupont pen and the Rolex watch were not stolen.

Show that the witness is inconsistent. Confront her with the documents, the s 121 statement and
the report that she used earlier.
 But s 121 statement is inadmissible (see s 122(1))
 But s 122(2) admissible if used for the prosecution or defence **read s 122(2)!!
 Can only turn to s 121 statement if it is for the purpose of impeaching a witness.
Otherwise, such statements are inadmissible.
 Impeachment provisions
o S 157(1)(c), also see s 147 of the Evidence Act

Note:
 Difference in impeachment process of a witness and an accused person
 When you impeach a witness, follow procedure as stated in Muthusamy’s case. Also read
Sum Wang v PP, *Loganatha Venkatesan v PP (when it comes to the impeachment of an

Page 8 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

accused person, don’t follow Muthusamy requirements)

Q3 (d) Compelling a witness to testify

 In the case of seizable cases, police have special powers of investigation.
 S 118 of the CPC provides that a police officer may, without the order of the PP, exercise all
or any of the special powers relating to police investigations given by s 120, 121, 125 and
126 in any seizable case.
 S 454 PC: House-breaking – under Schedule A CPC, it is a seizable offence.

 S 120 enables the police officer to require attendance of witnesses.

o A police officer may, by order in writing, require attendance before himself of any
person being within the limits of Singapore, who from the information given or
otherwise appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case and that
person shall attend as so required, provided that no person shall be required to
attend at any place distant more than 11 km from his usual place of abode.
o If the person fails to attend, warrant to secure attendance may be issued.

 Further, s 121 gives Sgt Deep Singh the power to examine and record Nosey’s statement.
o A police officer making a police investigation under this Chapter may examine orally
any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case and shall reduce into writing any statement made by the person so
examined.

S 174: Offence if a person does not apply.

THEREFORE, Sgt Deep Singh should order, in writing, the attendance of W at a place <11km
from Nosey’s usual place of abode, as he appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of
the case (because he arrested made the police report of Krishnan entering the premises).

Q3 (e) Was search illegal?

Search of Krishnan at the coffeeshop

 S 29(1) provides for search of an arrested person. Police officer may search the person
arrested and place in safe custody all articles other than necessary wearing apparel found
upon him and any of those articles which there is reason to believe were the instruments or
the fruits or other evidences of the crime may be detained until his discharge or acquittal.
 However, Krishnan was searched then arrested.
 Therefore, this search was illegal. Can argue that the seizure of pearl necklace and pawn
shop receipt for 2 gold rings is therefore illegal. But see s 68(1).
 SM Summit – distinction between illegality that preceded the crime designed to bring about
commission of the crime vs illegality of evidence obtained.
o So evidence unlawfully obtained can be admissible, provided that such reception of
evidence in court shall not operate unfairly wrt the accused. Entrapment not allowed.
o Evidence must also be relevant to matters / case at hand.
 See also Kuruma for test of relevancy.
 If relevant, but illegally obtained, the probative value outweighs prejudicial effect.

 Note that after arrest, everything to do with search and seizure becomes legal.

Page 9 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

Arrest of Krishnan at the coffeeshop

 s 32(1)(i): Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant
arrest any person who is by repute a habitual robber, housebreaker or thief...
 Krishnan was a known house burglar

THEREFORE, arrest was legal

Seizing pearl necklace and pawn shop receipt for 2 gold rings at coffeeshop
 Legal – s 68(1) allows any police officer to seize property which is alleged or suspected to
have been stolen, or which is found under circumstances, which create suspicion of the
commission of any offence
 Police report by Mary – sufficient to create suspicion.
 Items found on Krishnan matched the description of the items Mary claimed to have been
stolen from her house.

THEREFORE, seizure of items at coffeeshop LEGAL.

Search of Krishnan’s house

 See also s 29
 S 69 CPC: If information is given to any police officer not below the rank of sergeant that
there is reasonable cause for suspecting that any stolen property is concealed or lodged in
any dwelling-house or other place and he has good grounds for believing that by reason of
the delay in obtaining a search warrant the property is likely to be removed, that officer by
virtue of his office may search for specific articles alleged to have been stolen in the house
or place specified.
 “Any police officer not below the rank of sergeant”
o Is the letter confirming that he had been promoted sufficient? Probably, because this
happened AFTER the arrest.
 “Reasonable cause”
o YES. He should be allowed to search a suspect’s house if he is suspected of
housebreaking.
 “good grounds…”
o Arguable. If Krishnan is in the lockup, how is he to remove the items?
o However, if he has been granted bail, then there are good grounds to believe tha the
might transport the stolen property away.

Seizure of coins from his house

 Again, s 68(1) allows police officer to seize the collection of coins as Mary’s police report
could be enough to create suspicion of the commission of an offence (in this case,
housebreaking). Besides, set of coins very rare, therefore, it is unlikely for him to own one
himself.
 However, can argue that there is no way he could have gone home to leave the coins (and
not the pearl necklace or the gold rings) at home, then went back to the coffeeshop near
Mary’s place within such a short time if they do not live nearby.
 If they do, what reasons can a person have for returning to the scene of crime just after
committing a crime? And why did he bring along the pearl necklace or the gold rings?
(Second point is not very strong – prosecution can argue that he went to a pawn shop

Page 10 of 11
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TUTORIAL (1)
Overview and Commencement of Police Investigations

nearby then decided not to pawn the gold rings)

Page 11 of 11