SINGAPORE - The use of a newly proposed sentencing regime that could see serious sexual or violent crime offenders held in jail indefinitely will be decided by the Singapore courts and not the Government.

Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam said the period of continued incarceration will be assessed by a detention review board, which will decide if the offender is suitable for release.

Speaking to the media on Jan 22 on the proposed Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (Sepp) law, Mr Shanmugam said there is potential for some misunderstanding on the Government’s role in the sentencing process.

“When a person is first convicted, the court can choose to impose either a normal sentence or Sepp sentence. So it’s complete discretion with the court,” said the minister.

He added that if the court decides the offender is a suitable case for Sepp, then he serves a minimum period. At the end of the minimum period, he is assessed by experts.

“We are talking about psychiatrists, psychologists, a detention review board, to see how much risk you pose to society at that point in time, when you are due to be released,” added Mr Shanmugam. 

The offender can make written representations by himself or through a family member, or through a lawyer.

“That is then reviewed by the minister and if you’re no longer posing a high risk to society, you can be released. But if you still pose a high risk, then you can continue to be detained and your case will be reviewed every year,” said Mr Shanmugam. 

Sepp was introduced as part of the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill in Parliament on Jan 10. It is to prevent dangerous offenders from being automatically released from prison after their jail terms end, especially if they show signs of reoffending.

Sepp is limited to those who commit serious violent offences such as culpable homicide and attempted murder, and serious sexual offences such as rape and sexual penetration of a minor.

In a joint statement, the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Home Affairs said current sentencing options are inadequate to deal with such serious offences. They said Sepp will ensure serious offenders are detained for as long as is needed for public safety.

Meanwhile, the Home Affairs Minister will decide if a person sentenced under Sepp is to be released after serving his or her time, based on the advice of an expert panel.

Mr Shanmugam said that the new law involves a few dangerous offenders who have committed very serious crimes, to keep them from doing further harm to the rest of society. 

“It is the court which decides the sentence, whether they impose the Sepp or not. So whether Sepp is more appropriate than a normal imprisonment term for this specific offender, that is for the court to decide.

“After that minimum period, the offender will be assessed by experts with a very simple objective. What is the risk he is posing to society? Is society better off? Then the decision will be made by the minister based on expert opinions,” he added.

Offenders sentenced under Sepp can be jailed for between five and 20 years. They will not be eligible for remission, which is a discount on the sentence.

Offenders deemed suitable to leave prison may be required to attend counselling, remain at home during certain hours and don an electronic tag. He will be assessed every two years for his suitability to be discharged unconditionally.

Offenders assessed as not suitable for release can be detained indefinitely, with the case reviewed annually.

Mr Shanmugam said the Government’s key duty is to protect the public.

He noted that Sepp is a step along the same lines as the corrective training and preventive detention prison regimes.

With corrective training, offenders can be sentenced to imprisonment of between five years and 14 years. In the case of preventive detention, the courts can order a person to be detained for a long period to protect the public.

In both instances, the Home Affairs Minister decides whether an offender should be released. For life imprisonment, the Home Affairs Minister decides on remission.

Mr Shanmugam said that with the Sepp prison regime, judges could mete out shorter sentences.

“With Sepp, the judge who is posing the sentence would have greater clarity and greater peace of mind because he can impose what he thinks is a shorter sentence, at least a certain minimum duration… knowing that at the end of the minimum duration, the offender can be released depending on if he is rehabilitated, or if experts assess he is still a risk, he may be kept in longer,” he added.

Some people may end up being detained for longer, said Mr Shanmugam.

“Let’s say the sentence is for 10 years, but at the end of 10 years, the medical experts say it’s too risky to release him now. 

“During the 10 years, we will also attempt to rehabilitate the person, and we will look at the track record of his ability to rehabilitate. If you rehabilitate, you can be released,” said the minister.

He added that if it clearly shows that the offenders’ ability to rehabilitate is not there, and they pose a serious risk and the experts say so, then they may be detained longer.  

The proposed amendment comes in the wake of more egregious cases, particularly involving serial sexual offenders, in recent years, said Mr Shanmugam.

In May 2022, a man was sentenced to the maximum 20 years’ preventive detention for sexually assaulting two of his grandnieces.

This came less than three years after he served a sentence of 19 years’ jail and 24 strokes of the cane for statutory rape of his six-year-old stepdaughter in 2001.

Mr Shanmugam said the court noted that his risk of sexual reoffending was high, and that he had disregarded the consequences of his actions.

However, under the existing legal framework, offenders who have finished their sentences must be released unconditionally even if they are likely to go on to reoffend, he said.

The minister said the Sepp prison regime is a response to such cases. It will apply to those aged 21 and above, and will not just be for recalcitrant offenders but for first-time offenders as well.

Forensic medical examinations

Proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill tabled in Parliament on Jan 10 will also see powers afforded to the police to subject accused individuals to forensic medical examinations.

Forensic medical examinations consist of physical medical examinations and collection of samples from any body part, as well as taking of photographs, casts and impressions of body parts, which may include intimate parts.

Under the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, accused individuals who are required to take part in the examinations but refuse without reasonable excuse can be jailed for up to seven years, fined or both.

Mr Shanmugam said the police can proceed with examinations even if the accused is not cooperative, as long as it does not involve intimate parts or invasive procedures.

But those who are required to take part in forensic examinations involving intimate parts or invasive procedures and refuse to cooperate may be charged with an offence.

Consent will generally be required for forensic examinations on victims – with some exceptions.

Mr Shanmugam said the authorities can proceed with the examinations without the victim’s consent if the delay will result in the loss of evidence, and if the victim has a physical or mental condition that means he or she cannot give consent within a reasonable time.

“This is important because time is often very critical, especially for DNA evidence,” he said.

Such forensic examinations can even help solve cold cases, added the minister.

In 2002, a man, then 23, raped a 12-year-old near her home. Swabs were taken from the victim and an unknown DNA sample was found.

The case was solved 12 years later when the accused was arrested in 2014 for theft and a blood sample was taken from him and sent for DNA testing.

His DNA profile matched the one retrieved from the girl’s body.

In 2016, the man was sentenced to 16½ years’ jail and 18 strokes of the cane after pleading guilty to one count each of rape, outrage of modesty and criminal intimidation for his assault of the girl.