Last October, a former commander of Tanglin Police Division had his molestation charge compounded and he was given a discharge amounting to an acquittal by the court.

Mr Paul Lim Choon Wui 52, who is now in the private sector, had been accused of outraging the modesty of a 25-year-old woman in 2022 after he allegedly slapped her buttocks.

More recently, a Singaporean doctor by the name of Dheeraj Prem Khiatani who was accused of molesting a woman at Marina Bay Sands, likewise had his charge compounded. He compensated the woman and was also given a discharge amounting to an acquittal.

The cases have generated some discussion online over what the composition of offences actually means.

So why do the authorities allow some cases to be compounded, what happens in such a process and what are the legal implications for the accused?

WHAT IS COMPOSITION?

First, we should understand where composition sits in the criminal justice process. Composition is, essentially, a way of settling a criminal case.

In civil cases, where private individuals sue each other, it is possible to put an end to the case by settling — that is, by coming to an agreement, which usually involves payment of a sum of money in exchange for putting an end to legal proceedings.

This is not usually possible in criminal cases. One cannot simply pay money to make a criminal charge go away.

However, in most jurisdictions, the majority of crimes are minor: Traffic offences, regulatory breaches, shop theft, and bar brawls, for example.

It would be a waste of public time and resources to rigorously pursue prosecution of all these minor offences. There are therefore usually mechanisms for diverting minor offenders from the courts.

In Singapore, this is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. The Attorney-General (AG), who is also the Public Prosecutor, may choose not to bring charges against an accused person under investigation. The AG has many options:

He may decide to take no further action (if the complaint is not well founded);

He may decide to issue an advisory (which is simply a cautionary note to the accused);

He may decide to issue a stern or conditional warning (which is equivalent to saying the prosecution believes the accused committed the offence but is taking no legal action); or

He may decide to offer composition.

Composition is therefore not unique in the criminal justice process. It is but one of many mechanisms for diverting minor offenders from the courts, and not controversial in that regard.

Composition likely came to Singapore law in colonial times, finding its way into our Criminal Procedure Code by way of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, which has similar provisions on compounding of offences.

Second, what does composition actually mean? In Singapore, there is a fundamental principle in criminal justice called the presumption of innocence — an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

When an offence is compounded, the accused never gets convicted. Under Section 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, technically, certain specified offences can be compounded at any time.

More often, the accused is first investigated, and composition is offered by the Public Prosecutor, under Section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010.

What happens is that the accused person generally gets a letter from the police saying that, upon payment of a certain sum of money, the accused will either not be charged or, if already charged, that the prosecution will apply for a discharge amounting to acquittal.

Either way, the legal effect of composition is that the accused person is never proven guilty and is therefore entitled to be treated as innocent. Composition is not, legally, an admission of guilt.

WHAT OFFENCES ARE COVERED?

Third, when will composition be offered? Composition may only be offered for certain offences, as specified in various laws passed by Parliament.

These include, for example, voluntarily causing hurt, mischief, criminal trespass, defamation, criminal intimidation and, of course, outrage of modesty.

The Road Traffic Act 1961 also allows traffic offences, such as driving without due care or reasonable consideration, to be compoundable. In fact, this is commonly done.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) does not publish complete statistics on offers of composition. There may be internal guidelines on when composition is offered, but these are not available to the public.

As with all exercises of prosecutorial discretion, the prosecution is supposed to act in the public interest — composition exists to save public time and resources, thus it would usually be offered where the public interest in going to court is small.

For example, where the harm done is slight and the cost of going to court would be disproportionate. This is why composition is commonly offered in cases of minor traffic violations, for example, which are numerous but not particularly harmful.

As with all exercises of prosecutorial discretion, the accused’s characteristics may be considered in deciding whether to offer composition.

For example, whether the accused was remorseful, has cooperated with investigations, or perhaps shown propensity for reform. However, the accused’s educational background or job title, by themselves, would not ordinarily be relevant.

In Mr Lim’s case, it is not clear why the prosecution decided to offer composition, and the prosecution is under no legal obligation to explain its exercise of discretion.

It is common for the prosecution to make an offer for composition, but it is also possible for the accused to request composition by making representations to the AGC, as was the case with Dr Khiatani.

Since it appears that the accused had already been charged in that case, the AG’s consent was required in order for the victim to accept the offer of composition.

Fourth, what is the effect of composition?

Composition is not a fine, although it is often confused with fines. A fine is a penalty that a guilty person pays as a means of punishment, after he is convicted by a court of law.

Composition, although it involves payment of money, is not a fine because the accused is never convicted – the whole point of composition is to avoid a conviction.

This means, importantly, that the accused person would also avoid having a criminal record.

Ordinarily, this would also mean that compounded offences cannot be taken into account if the accused is convicted of future offences. While previous convictions are often considered aggravating factors in sentencing, since composition is not a conviction, a compounded offence should not ordinarily be taken as an aggravating factor.

The exception, however, is with compounded traffic offences – recent amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1961 have allowed courts to take compounded traffic offences into account when sentencing offenders for road traffic offences.

The courts have said this is because compounded traffic offences can sometimes show that an offender is recalcitrant and therefore requires a deterrent sentence.

To sum up, composition is a normal and uncontroversial mechanism in the criminal justice system. It exists for a very good reason — to prevent wastage of public time and resources.

What may have drawn attention to the recent cases of Mr Lim and Dr Khiatani was that they involved outrage of modesty, a relatively serious offence.

Source:
courtesy of TODAY

by Today Online

If you have any stories or news that you would like to share with the global online community, please feel free to share it with us by contacting us directly at [email protected]