Advertisement

COMMENT: Minors must be accompanied for police interviews

(AFP file photo)

A 14-year-old boy is dead. He had been taken into police custody as part of an investigation into an alleged case of outrage of modesty, then released on bail on the same day of his death. According to his mother, he had admitted to the crime during the police interview, but later said he did not do it.

There was no parent, guardian or legal counsel with him during questioning.

According to a 30 January report by The New Paper, current police practice in Singapore does not require a young accused person to be accompanied by a parent or guardian during an interview.

“A police investigation is about searching for the truth. Having a parent in the same room with the accused would hamper this search, because they will not be neutral parties,” ambassador for the National Crime Prevention Council Lionel de Souza told The New Paper.

He said that minors who were emotionally unstable could have a counsellor in the room, but not the parents. “If there is reason to doubt whether the accused was coerced or not, this can be brought up by lawyers in court,” he said.

This is stunningly bad practice. It’s problematic enough that accused persons who are adults do not get immediate access to legal counsel when taken into police custody. But refusing minors the presence of a parent, guardian or lawyer is unacceptable. If even educated adults can be frightened, flustered and ignorant of their rights during investigations, how can we expect teenagers to have a grasp of the situation?

A police search for the truth does not mean that persons of interests do not need to be protected, especially when that person of interest is a minor. Coercive, intimidating situations could in fact hamper the discovery of the truth, as the testimonies can be inaccurate, embellished or completely falsified to satisfy the authorities. As lawyer Amolat Singh told The New Paper, “Kids will say whatever they think the police want to hear to get out of the situation.”

It is not enough that defence lawyers will have the opportunity to make complaints of coercion in court. By then, it is already too late; the child would already have been put through a frightening, traumatic experience, and any attempt to figure out what really happened will be bogged down by trying to figure out which part of the testimonies, if any, can really shed light on the case. It would be far better to deal with these issues before questioning, rather than waiting till the trial.

Justice cannot just be done; it must also be seen to be done. Allowing persons of interest immediate access to legal counsel is crucial to ensure that the subject is aware of his/her rights, and that any accusation of coercion or bullying on the part of the authorities can be forestalled. This is especially true when the person being questioned is a minor – we might want to seek the truth, but not at the expense of the rights of the child.

Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger and journalist. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.