Assault 'a civil case', so no police action
-
Certainly this particular response bears merit. Some controls have to be in place and followed to prevent people from making false allegations and wrongful accusations against innocent parties. If police investigate everything based on one person's account, the likelihood of system abuse by the public will definitely increase.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The key difference between a seizable and a non-seizable offence is that for seizable offences (such as murder, rape, voluntarily causing grievous hurt or causing hurt with weapons), police officers are legally empowered to arrest without a warrant. For non-seizable offences (such as misappropriation of property and mischief), police require a warrant of arrest or an order from a magistrate to make an arrest.
Section 323 cases can range from a parent disciplining his child by slapping him, to family disputes, to scuffles between quarrelling persons, to bullying cases arising from road rage or a staring incident.
Many of the cases reported under Section 323 arose between adults in situations of dispute which get out of hand and the parties get into a fight. Most family-related cases are resolved amicably without police intervention. These parties often do not necessarily want to seek redress through the legal system.
This process enables the magistrate to decide on the veracity of the complaint. This is important as the indiscriminate use of process may encourage mischievous or even malicious complaints, resulting in harassment to the defendant of a dispute and a waste of public time and resources.
Police actions need to be properly calibrated after careful assessment of the circumstances of each case. Police would like to assure the public that in cases where there is clear harm to public interests and vulnerable victims, even where the offence may turn out to be a non-seizable one, police will seek powers to lawfully investigate and prosecute the offender.
That being said, i don't think the spokeswoman worded her response with any conviction, leading me to wonder whether she really believed her own article. What she did was to simply throw the book at an increasingly disillusioned public over what looks like lethargic and administrative bureaucracy by a police force more interested in filling up the right forms than actively pursuing the right course of action
Did the police pursue the information on the spot or did they pursue it only after the incident was upgraded upon vigorous appeal, and then only after Dr Liew had to undergo extensive surgery?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Dr Chia expressed concern over the safety of his family and friends following the assault on Dr Liew. He also asked if members of the public should call the police if they witnessed assaults.
Police investigation showed that Dr Liew was assaulted by two persons at a deserted back lane near a coffee shop. When he returned to the coffee shop and members of the public noticed he was injured, they called the police, not realising that he had already done so. Police investigators pursued the information given by Dr Liew but he was not able to identify the alleged assailants.
The lack of urgency was still not explained by the police and their dispassionate response is hardly encouraging.
POLICE'S ASSURANCE TO PUBLIC
Police would like to assure the public that in cases where there is clear harm to public interests and vulnerable victims, even where the offence may turn out to be a non-seizable one, police will seek powers to lawfully investigate and prosecute the offender."
(Straits Times, 23 Aug)
After this jolt in the back, the actions (or inactions) by the police are making people wonder just how many similar cases have slipped under the radar screen in past years. -
This just suddenly occured to me..
Based on the initial information given, the case was classified as voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code. However, such a case requires a magistrate's authorisation before the police can exercise full powers of investigation. Dr Liew was given a police medical-report form and a referral letter to lodge a complaint with the magistrate.
He was, however, advised to contact the investigation officer should his medical examination reveal any fracture or other serious injury as the case may then fall under a different classification.
This item indicates that a medical verification to determine classification of injury is required to ascertain the appropriate response. That in turn means for the police to respond speedily, they need to be accompanied by a trained medic.
Does that make any sense at all
If not, why is it included under section 323, especially if the police are not qualified to decide on the spot? -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Apparently the Police appears to be operating under a MORONIC SYSTEM.
This just suddenly occured to me..
[b]Based on the initial information given, the case was classified as voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Penal Code. However, such a case requires a magistrate's authorisation before the police can exercise full powers of investigation. Dr Liew was given a police medical-report form and a referral letter to lodge a complaint with the magistrate.
He was, however, advised to contact the investigation officer should his medical examination reveal any fracture or other serious injury as the case may then fall under a different classification.
This item indicates that a medical verification to determine classification of injury is required to ascertain the appropriate response. That in turn means for the police to respond speedily, they need to be accompanied by a trained medic.
Does that make any sense at all
If not, why is it included under section 323, especially if the police are not qualified to decide on the spot? [/b] -
Sadly it appears that red tape is everywhere. It's more inportant than saving people's lives in hospital and protecting the innocent?
-
Then, you slap the police officer after his official duty loh..or visit his house call him out and give a big slap on his face lah.....Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Why don't you read properly before commenting?
'voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty' is a seizable offence in para 332 of the said Schedule A.
-
When Dr Liew was assaulted by strangers, common sense tell us the police should take immediate action to arrest the attackers.So what had gone wrong with the policemen?Lazy or no common sense?
-
Please ask Wong Kan Seng.Originally posted by PRP:When Dr Liew was assaulted by strangers, common sense tell us the police should take immediate action to arrest the attackers.So what had gone wrong with the policemen?Lazy or no common sense? He should answer the question being a minister drawing tax-payer $$$. -
Did not not even read the earlier posts? It's the law..Originally posted by PRP:When Dr Liew was assaulted by strangers, common sense tell us the police should take immediate action to arrest the attackers.So what had gone wrong with the policemen?Lazy or no common sense? -
Mr Police,
When a person is assualted by someone he doens't know & seek your help, u should go & get the attacker and write down his particulars & interview him.U need not detain him in lock-up if it is not a "seizable offence".The govt should prosecute the attacker in court since he commited an offence. This is the way the policemen should thier job.
Thank me. -
Originally posted by PRP:
yup, good point.
[b]Mr Police,
When a person is assualted by someone he doens't know & seek your help, u should go & get the attacker and write down his particulars & interview him.U need not detain him in lock-up if it is not a "seizable offence".The govt should prosecute the attacker in court since he commited an offence. This is the way the policemen should thier job.
Thank me.[/b] -
Originally posted by PRP:
This is the normal practice what...
[b]Mr Police,
When a person is assualted by someone he doens't know & seek your help, u should go & get the attacker and write down his particulars & interview him.U need not detain him in lock-up if it is not a "seizable offence".The govt should prosecute the attacker in court since he commited an offence. This is the way the policemen should thier job.
Thank me.[/b]
-
Acording to the police, when an assault is minor,it is classified under "non-seizable offence".The victim has to complaint to a magistrate & the case is classifed as civil case.That means the victim has to sue himself.Originally posted by Sagara:This is the normal practice what... -
In S'pore, u can punch someone and the police consider it as civil case if the assault is minor.Is this what our law say?
-
Originally posted by PRP:
for fairness, righteousness & kindness
In S'pore, u can punch someone and the police consider it as civil case if the assault is minor.[b]Is this what our law say?[/b]
Thats what you lack.
-
Not completely true. The magistrate may direct the police to investigate as a criminal case if he/she is satisfied the severity of the offence requires it.Originally posted by PRP:Acording to the police, when an assault is minor,it is classified under "non-seizable offence".The victim has to complaint to a magistrate & the case is classifed as civil case.That means the victim has to sue himself. -
To prove the accuracy in interpretation of our laws...one must volunteer to whack a policeman during the his off-duty or after office hour. Then, from here we will be able to see how's the law being interpreted.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Not completely true. The magistrate may direct the police to investigate as a criminal case if he/she is satisfied the severity of the offence requires it. -
No need...just get your wife to whack you. I am sure the police wouldn't careOriginally posted by Lowclassman:To prove the accuracy in interpretation of our laws...one must volunteer to whack a policeman during the his off-duty or after office hour. Then, from here we will be able to see how's the law being interpreted. -
Thank you. It is hard to see appreciation in internet forums.Originally posted by sgquitter:yup, good point. -
Trivia question:
You see a policeman outside a hospital in Singapore. What is he doing?
a) Bringing someone who just got beaten up to the A&E.
b) Protecting the doctor-that-kena-hantam from revenge-seeking 369 gang members.
c) Stopping tourists from taking photos.
The answer (need you ask?) here. -
In fact, it is not a civil suit because it is under the penal code.It is only a question whether the govt or the victim prosecute himself.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Not completely true. The magistrate may direct the police to investigate as a criminal case if he/she is satisfied the severity of the offence requires it. -
Interesting blog entry...Originally posted by gerald_tan:Trivia question:
You see a policeman outside a hospital in Singapore. What is he doing?
a) Bringing someone who just got beaten up to the A&E.
b) Protecting the doctor-that-kena-hantam from revenge-seeking 369 gang members.
c) Stopping tourists from taking photos.
The answer (need you ask?) here.
On one hand, you can't really blame the officer for doing his job; but on the other hand, he was pretty brainless in performance of his duties. Or at least in the manner he was described (which is bound to be biased)
No investigative skills displayed. He should have asked for identification at the beginning when she was snapping away. Then do a quick discreet check with his department to get her background via a phone call.
Instead, he let the blogger 'saunter' back to Gleneagles while he followed, probably not even sure how to proceed except to tail the 'suspect'.
Then made a scene at the hospital lobby by 'detaining' the mother and the blogger under the pretext of 'investigation'.
Overall, it sounded more like civil harrassment of civilians then actual detective work. Rather amateurish of our police.
In fact, the whole scene smacks of overreaction from the American Embassy staff if that's true, and the obvious fact that we sometimes step out of our way to please those white skins.
-
The power to prosecute depends on the call by the AG Chamber. The victim can only be allow to file a civil lawsuit but never the mean to sue a defendant to jail. Whether it is a criminal case or civil wrong-doing would have to be decided by the magistrate based on factual findings and medical report for the next stage of proceeding.Originally posted by PRP:In fact, it is not a civil suit because it is under the penal code.It is only a question whether the govt or the victim prosecute himself.
It is against the guiding principle of a fair trial or the nemesis for a breakdown in society order if every laymen can have the power to file criminal lawsuit which carried possibly a jail penalty without giving the presiding judge room to manoeuvre for a lenient sentence or out of court settlement. The last thing that we want is for a lawful society to be titled in favour of the aristocrats or capitalists who can afford to buy over law instead of governing by the principle of equity. -
Crappy entry with fugly pics.Originally posted by gerald_tan:Trivia question:
You see a policeman outside a hospital in Singapore. What is he doing?
a) Bringing someone who just got beaten up to the A&E.
b) Protecting the doctor-that-kena-hantam from revenge-seeking 369 gang members.
c) Stopping tourists from taking photos.
The answer (need you ask?) here.
The PO was just doing his job. -
I'm not sure whether it is a civil or criminal case when a crime victim sues the offender in court based on the crimianl law.Originally posted by TooFree:The power to prosecute depends on the call by the AG Chamber. The victim can only be allow to file a civil lawsuit but never the mean to sue a defendant to jail. Whether it is a criminal case or civil wrong-doing would have to be decided by the magistrate based on factual findings and medical report for the next stage of proceeding.
It is against the guiding principle of a fair trial or the nemesis for a breakdown in society order if every laymen can have the power to file criminal lawsuit which carried possibly a jail penalty without giving the presiding judge room to manoeuvre for a lenient sentence or out of court settlement. The last thing that we want is for a lawful society to be titled in favour of the aristocrats or capitalists who can afford to buy over law instead of governing by the principle of equity.
When AG or the police think that an assualt is minor,they have the discretion not to prosecute the offneders.I don't understand what is a victim complains to magistrate thing.Maybe it is for a magistrate to authorise the police to arrest the offender. -
letter was in Today yesterday. (notwithstanding that the assailant may be a mental case)
"Bashed up by adult"
Letter from Zarina Jaffar
On Sept 24 at about 5.30pm, my 12-year-old son, who had just returned from the library, called to inform me that he would be at the playground behind my block in Woodlands to chat with some friends.
.
Barely half an hour later, I received a call informing me that my son had been beaten up. He had been punched in the nose, jumped on and kicked repeatedly by an adult male of about 30 years of age. My son's three friends had stood there frozen in shock.
.
My husband and I rushed to the scene to find our son lying on the floor with a bloody nose, crying.
.
Other adults in the area just looked the other way. When I tried to find out what had happened, they gestured as if to say, don't bother me. But I understand why they did not want to get involved.
.
While I would like to commend the police for their prompt response to my call, I was disappointed that they couldn't do much.
.
As this is a non-seizable case, the police are not empowered to arrest the man until I lodge a formal complaint to the magistrate.
.
My son said he had seen this man on a few occasions, sometimes talking to himself and, at other times, acting friendly. This seems to suggest that he could be mentally troubled.
.
If the talk among my neighbours is to be believed, my son may not be his first victim. My boy did not provoke him but was attacked out of the blue.
.
From my understanding, the police can take action only when there is serious injury or a loss of life and limb. My boy had a swollen nose and cuts on his head and was given outpatient treatment. This is termed as a "simple injury".
.
I should think that any form of assault, especially unprovoked and involving a young victim, should be covered by the Children and Young Persons Act — no matter how "simple" it is — and the police should have the right to act without a court order.
.
Making our own enquiries, we found out which block and probable floor on which assailant lived. But this information was of no use as the police couldn't do much.
.
My husband is even toying with the idea of giving the assailant as good as our son got.
.
It seems there is a loophole in the law that can be easily exploited. All along, we had believed that any form of assault, however minor, gave the police the power of arrest.
.
I am glad the man did not have a weapon with him at that time or the consequences would have been graver.
.
We find it a hassle to lodge a complaint with the magistrate and are willing to let the matter rest if it is proven that the assailant is, indeed, mentally ill.
.
However, I do hope the authorities will ensure that he seeks medical help. Otherwise, he will continue to be a menace to residents in my neighbourhood."