Advertisement

COMMENT: Suspects should have immediate access to legal counsel

Kovan double murder suspect Iskandar bin Rahmat (middle) arrives at police Cantonment Complex. (Yahoo! Photo)

COMMENT

Iskandar bin Rahmat, a 34-year-old former police officer, was charged with the double murder of a father and son.

A surprise was waiting for him when he arrived in court: his family had hired three lawyers for him. Despite the fact that he had been in police custody since two Fridays ago, he had had no idea about his defence team until he saw them in the courtroom.

His lawyers -- Ferlin Jayatissa and Rudy Marican from Lex Compass LLC and N Sudha Nair -- had applied to speak with him. Their application was denied by the police because investigations were still ongoing. In Singapore, one does not effectively have the right to legal counsel until investigations have been concluded (or when the police allow it).

If found guilty, Iskandar will be facing the maximum penalty: death.

What happens during investigation matters.

What happens during police interrogation matters.

Anything he says or does at this moment could affect the outcome when his case comes to trial. Yet, at this stage, he does not have access to his lawyers.

Why do we have a system that would deny someone like Iskandar legal counsel at this crucial stage?

While I agree that it's important that investigators be able to be thorough and focussed on their work, this should not be mutually exclusive from the suspect's right to a lawyer, or the accused's right to the best defence he/she can get. It's in the best interest of our criminal justice system that everything be as transparent and fair as possible.

This is especially important when the potential punishment involved is as irreversible as the death penalty. Any mistake or malpractice could lead to the loss of a human life, and when that happens, no amount of reparation will ever be enough.

Suspects in criminal investigations should have the right to legal counsel, and interrogations should be recorded, preferably on video. Such a practice would only benefit everyone in the long run, precluding any allegations of police brutality or maltreatment during interrogation, or claims of inconsistencies in statements made.

In this way, allegations that surfaced in the past could very easily have been cleared up.

Example 1: In January this year, former SMRT bus drivers He Jun Ling and Liu Xiang Ying both alleged in separate interviews that they had been beaten during interrogation.

Example 2: A few months later, in April, former law professor Tey Tsun Hang claimed that his statements had been made under duress, saying that they had been "oppressively taken".

These claims were later rebunked or dismissed as "baseless", but these episodes could have been completely avoided had the interrogations been videotaped and carried out in the presence of the suspect's lawyer.

Recordings and legal counsels would also go a long way in maintaining the public's trust in Singapore's criminal investigation processes, assuring us that the police is accountable and responsible with their work.

While it is important that perpetrators of crimes be found and punished for their misdeeds, as a nation that values its criminal justice system, we cannot let human rights fall to the wayside.