Assault 'a civil case', so no police action
-
hi all,
From the horse's mouth: "Even if the offence remains only one of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 but police assess that the circumstances of the case make it one of clear public concern, the investigating officer would apply for an order to fully investigate the matter on behalf of the aggrieved party.
These would include cases where the assailant is a bully taking undue physical advantage of the vulnerable, especially young children, infirm persons, senior citizens, the disabled or intellectually-challenged persons.
For other situations of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323, police will advise the aggrieved party to lay a Magistrate's Complaint if he would like to take the other party to court. The magistrate, after considering the facts presented, may then empower police to investigate the case."
I'm very interested in fruitful discussion and not argument, so pls do not take offense at my two cents worth. These are my points:
a)From above's reply, it is clear official police standards requires the police to sometimes assess and make judgment call regarding the merits of a complaint, to apply for an investigative order on the victim's behalf. Note the special cases listed. Thus for the 1)old man and 2)child cases alone: the police response is so severely inadequate even by their own standards that it deserves discipline.
b) Skin breaking or fracture test (i.e. difference btw non-seizable /seizable offenses) cannot fully capture the degree of seriousness of the offense. As eloquently stated by a forum writer, the root of the problem lies with the law; it needs improvement. This is pretty obvious from the many absurd forum suggestions that can perfectly exploit the loophole of this law.
c) Can anyone knowledgable in legal matters kindly inform the forum community by outlining the process of laying a Magistrate's complaint in the unfortunate event a genuine victim's case get classified as a non seizable offense? We'll like to assess just how onerous the legal and adminstrative burdens are for the victim who seeks legal redress. Any legal and time cost estimates will be appreciated...thanks! -
Legally, a riot is a disturbance of the peace by several persons, assembled and acting with a common intent in executing a lawful or unlawful enterprise in a violent and turbulent manner.Originally posted by BillyBong:Fine. One man.
Would the situation have changed had it been 2 or more? Judging by the very first case that started this thread, the answer is a firm NO.
You're missing the point.
Riot, rout, and unlawful assembly are related offenses, yet they are separate and distinct. A rout differs from a riot in that the persons involved do not actually execute their purpose but merely move toward it. The degree of execution that converts a rout into a riot is often difficult to determine.
An unlawful assembly transpires when persons convene for a purpose that, if executed, would make them rioters, but who separate without performing any act in furtherance of their purpose. For example, when a restaurant owner refused to serve a certain four customers and barred them from entering the establishment, the four men remained in front of the doors of the restaurant and blocked the entrance to all other customers. Although a riot did not result from their actions, the men were arrested and convicted of unlawful assembly.
At common law, an unlawful assembly is a gathering of at least three persons whose conduct causes observers to reasonably fear that a breach of the peace will result. (The Singapore Penal Code defines an "unlawful assembly" as a group of five or more persons with the common object of committing an offence.) When the meeting is a furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, the participation of only two persons will suffice to constitute the crime of unlawful assembly.
An unlawful assembly becomes a rout when the participants take some step to achieve their common purpose; e.g., if three men who have assembled to commit arson proceed toward the building that they intend to set on fire, they are guilty of a rout even if they never reach their goal. There is a riot if violence actually results from an unlawful assembly.
The common law rule, and most of the statutes that define riot, require three or more persons to be involved. Some statutes fix the minimum number at two.
Under English law, a riot is defined by the Public Order Act 1986 as twelve or more persons who "together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety". This carries the possibility of a fine and a sentence of up to ten years' imprisonment.
There must be a common intent to riot. A previous agreement or conspiracy to riot is not usually an element of a riot. A common intent, however, to engage in an act of violence, combined with a concert of action, is sometimes necessary. In one US case, following a high school football game, a group of boys staged a "violent, brutal and indecent" assault on the color guard and band members of the visiting team. When the visitors attempted to leave, the attacks continued. On trial, the attackers claimed that the charge of riot did not apply to them because they had had no "common intent." The court held that "an intent is a mental state which can be inferred from conduct." They were found guilty of riot and the decision was affirmed on appeal.[/i] -
The police is saying that the rule is for the aggrieved party to file a complaint in court. The police can break the usual rule and file the complaint on behalf of the victim if they feel it is a matter of clear public concern. It is a matter of judgment for the police officer on the beat as to whether the case justifies doing what the victim should have done on his own.Originally posted by gartheven2000:From above's reply, it is clear official police standards requires the police to sometimes assess and make judgment call regarding the merits of a complaint, to apply for an investigative order on the victim's behalf. Note the special cases listed. Thus for the 1)old man and 2)child cases alone: the police response is so severely inadequate even by their own standards that it deserves discipline.
In those cases, the policemen obviously felt that the victim could file the case on their own or perhaps they did not belive the allegation. We do not know the full facts of the case. Whether that assessment was right or wrong is a separate issue, but the classification of the case was right. Voluntarily causing hurt is a non-seizable offence and no arrests can be made. A magistrate's complaint is required, whether it is filed by the aggrieved party or by the police on behalf of them in cases of clear public concern.Skin breaking or fracture test (i.e. difference btw non-seizable /seizable offenses) cannot fully capture the degree of seriousness of the offense. As eloquently stated by a forum writer, the root of the problem lies with the law; it needs improvement. This is pretty obvious from the many absurd forum suggestions that can perfectly exploit the loophole of this law.
This is a common law definition that is in keeping with those in UK, Malaysia and most Commonwealth countries. If you want Parliament to legislate and come up with a different definition, go see your your MP instead of talking about it here.Can anyone knowledgable in legal matters kindly inform the forum community by outlining the process of laying a Magistrate's complaint in the unfortunate event a genuine victim's case get classified as a non seizable offense? We'll like to assess just how onerous the legal and adminstrative burdens are for the victim who seeks legal redress.
It's very simple:
http://www.subcourts.gov.sg/criminal/processes_how_to_file_magis_cmplt.htm -
Ask the victim whether he wants the attacker charged
I think to make the matter simple,the police should ask a victim whether he wants the attacker prosecuted.If he wants,the police should follow up the matter and don't ask the poor layman to lodge a complaint to a magistrate.
For example if a husband beats his wife and the wife maked a report to the police,i think it should be up to the wife decide whether she wants his husband prosecuted.Wouldn't it better than to let the police to decide?The police maight think the assault is minor but the victim sometimes doesn't think likewise. -
Brilliant idea!
-
Originally posted by PRP:
Student: I want you to prosecute my teacher for defamation, assault and voluntarily causing hurt. She scolded me in front of the class, put me in fear of my personal safety and indeed hurt me when she hit my hand with a ruler....
[b]Ask the victim whether he wants the attacker charged
I think to make the matter simple,the police should ask a victim whether he wants the attacker prosecuted.If he wants,the police should follow up the matter and don't ask the poor layman to lodge a complaint to a magistrate.
For example if a husband beats his wife and the wife maked a report to the police,i think it should be up to the wife decide whether she wants his husband prosecuted.Wouldn't it better than to let the police to decide?The police maight think the assault is minor but the victim sometimes doesn't think likewise.[/b] -
He should complain to MOE.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Student: I want you to prosecute my teacher for defamation, assault and voluntarily causing hurt. She scolded me in front of the class, put me in fear of my personal safety and indeed hurt me when she hit my hand with a ruler.... -
It is right for the police to prosecute the offender for this case.It is right not because the victim is a VIP.It is right because a person has committed a crime & the police should take action.However,the police can decide whether an attack is too minor to prosecute.Originally posted by PRP:A PAP MP was punched by a taxi driver
Regarding the recent case of a PAP MP was punched by a taxi driver,why didn't the police classify it as a 'non-seizable' offence and asked the MP to make a complaint to a magistrate?In fact,the MP said he pardoned the taxi driver.
Is the case a 'non-seizable' offence? -
The taxi driver would be charged under 'Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public service from his duty.' (Sect.332 of the Penal Code). Under Schedule A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CAP '68'), this is a seizable offence.Originally posted by PRP:It is right for the police to prosecute the offender for this case.It is right not because the victim is a VIP.It is right because a person has committed a crime & the police should take action.However,the police can decide whether an attack is too minor to prosecute. -
Thanks for point out the law which the drivers would be charged.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The taxi driver would be charged under 'Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public service from his duty.' (Sect.332 of the Penal Code). Under Schedule A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CAP '68'), this is a seizable offence.
Suppose Mr Seng were not a public servant, would the police prosecute the offender?I believe under the circumstance,the police should prosecute the attacker.
Suppose Mr Seng (he is a public servent)was punched by his brother,should the police prosecute his brother?It would depends on the circumstances & the severity of the hurt. -
If he was punched whilst he was carrying out his duties as a public servant (such as conducting Meet-the-People sessions), the offence is a seizable offence. Otherwise, it will depend on the severity of the injuries sustained for classification of the offence under existing law.Originally posted by PRP:Thanks for point out the law which the drivers would be charged.
Suppose Mr Seng were not a public servant, would the police prosecute the offender?I believe under the circumstance,the police should prosecute the attacker.
Suppose Mr Seng (he is a public servent)was punched by his brother,should the police prosecute his brother?It would depends on the circumstances & the severity of the hurt.
As I said, if you think the law should be changed to make it more stringent, then petition your MP to draft a bill for debate in Parliament. Remember though that a law that gives too much leeway to the police on the ground will result in varying interpretations of the law.
Humans are prone to error and interpretations are subjective by nature. If you punch your brother and he complains to an angry, frustrated policeman, he may well consider it severe enough to arrest you whilst another policeman will not. Enforcement of the law will become arbitrary and dependent on the policeman called to the scene. Having so much power in the hands of the policeman will also be an inducement to corruption. That will not inspire confidence in the legal system either. -
I wonder what will happen if someone punches a high rank MP outside his house. Mr LKY, GCT or LHL.
-
Easy...he will have to apologize in open court, the judge will make sure he does not retract that apology, and as a show of compassion, the MP will compound the charges and he/she walks out a free and aquitted man...Originally posted by redstone:I wonder what will happen if someone punches a high rank MP outside his house. Mr LKY, GCT or LHL.
-
Will like to see someone hit a very senior MP and the MP have to file magistrate complaint.
-
Thanks for your msg.To determine the severity of an injury is quite an objective judgement.I believe the police can't anyhow classify,isn't it so?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:If he was punched whilst he was carrying out his duties as a public servant (such as conducting Meet-the-People sessions), the offence is a seizable offence. Otherwise, it will depend on the severity of the injuries sustained for classification of the offence under existing law.
As I said, if you think the law should be changed to make it more stringent, then petition your MP to draft a bill for debate in Parliament. Remember though that a law that gives too much leeway to the police on the ground will result in varying interpretations of the law.
Humans are prone to error and interpretations are subjective by nature. If you punch your brother and he complains to an angry, frustrated policeman, he may well consider it severe enough to arrest you whilst another policeman will not. Enforcement of the law will become arbitrary and dependent on the policeman called to the scene. Having so much power in the hands of the policeman will also be an inducement to corruption. That will not inspire confidence in the legal system either. -
Judge it on case by case basis?
-
The most important point is judging it correctly.Originally posted by redstone:Judge it on case by case basis? -
Actually it isn't a 'civil case'. The policemen who said as such said so wrongly. It is, to be exact, a 'Non-Seizable Case'.
The difference between a 'Seizable' and 'Non-Seizable' case is simply that for the latter, the Police have limited powers to exercise. They have limited powers of investigation.
Basically there are two types of cases: Police-Initiated cases, and Member-of-Public-Initiated cases. A non-seizable case would be the latter. If it is indeed a non-seizable case, you would have to file a magistrate's complaint.
After hearing you out, the magistrate will then decide if Police intervention is required. I am not so sure what will happen if the Magistrate decides that Police intervention is not necessary, but I do know that if the magistrate agrees with you after hearing your case, the file will be forwarded to the Police Division/Investigator concerned, who will then follow up with the investigation process. So in that respect, you don't have to worry.
The Police also have to abide by certain laws and rules too, you know. They can't just do anyhow as they wish. -
Many times,at first an accused was charged with murder but later changed to manslaughter.The public prsecutor can't differenciate meaning of murder & manslaughter?
-
Actually, the initial charge is brought forward by the investigator in charge of the case. The final verdict, however, is a result of the numerous court hearings. Sometimes the acused person gets convicted of what he is initially charged for, sometimes the charge is reduced, and sometimes 'upgraded'.Originally posted by PRP:Many times,at first an accused was charged with murder but later changed to manslaughter.The public prsecutor can't differenciate meaning of murder & manslaughter?
The outcome of the court's decisions actually depend on a few things:
1)Amount and Quality of Evidence
2)Investigator, Deputy Public Prosecutor, the Judge, Witnesses, The Defence Counsel... and a lot more.
The courts are a neutral venue for anyone and everyone who wish to make their case. That's why it is presided by a judge who will hear both sides of the story, before coming to a final decision. So the final verdict depends on factors, even more so than the few that I have listed.
I guess that's the beauty of the court system: By using it, one can attain justice. But then maybe that's also why, I'm sad to say, sometimes, some very lucky people get away with bloody blue murder. Quite literally too.