SINGAPORE – The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) are considering appealing against the High Court’s recent decision to award a man who sued the police $20,000 in damages for false imprisonment.

Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam said in Parliament on Tuesday that MHA and AGC are taking a closer look at the court’s reasons for reaching its conclusions, and that the Government will also make changes to the law to close any gaps between its policy intent and current laws if necessary.

Stressing the importance of empowering police officers to make quick ground decisions while working in high-stress environments, Mr Shanmugam said a climate where police actions are unfairly critiqued will undermine public trust in the police.

“It will also lead to defensive policing, where the ground officers will try to do the least possible,” he said.

“They will fear that everything they do will be over-analysed and picked apart unfairly. It would be easier, in such situations, to not do anything.”

Responding to questions from Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast GRC) and Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC), Mr Shanmugam said the police have told him they take a different view from the decision reached by the court.

“The police and AGC will look at these points and decide whether the court’s decision should be appealed,” he said.

In a written judgment issued in January, Justice Philip Jeyaretnam found that police officer Mohamed Rosli Mohamed had made up the observation that Mr Mah Kiat Seng, 48, had been mumbling to himself and had spat into a plastic bag to justify apprehending him under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act.

The officer initially claimed in an affidavit that Mr Mah was “mumbling to himself at times”, but later withdrew the assertion after viewing body-worn camera footage.

Justice Jeyaretnam found that Staff Sergeant Rosli had acted in bad faith and said there was an individual lapse on his part that resulted in Mr Mah being falsely imprisoned, albeit for less than a day.

Mr Shanmugam said that while MHA has to be strict about upholding the highest standards for the police, there is a need to ensure that its analysis of officers’ ground judgments is reasonable and fair.

Noting that police officers often have to make split-second decisions based on limited information, he said officers must be given sufficient latitude to take decisive action, so long as they act in good faith.

Mr Shanmugam said the court had found that Mr Mah had exhibited unusual behaviour, but that this did not qualify as symptoms of someone with a mental disorder.

But the police officer on the ground was just equally observing him, and had to make decisions on the ground, he added.

A situation where police officers are afraid that their actions are critiqued with the benefit of hindsight will lead to officers taking minimal action, which can have a detrimental effect on society’s safety and security, he said.

“Defensive policing is, essentially, no policing,” said Mr Shanmugam.

In deciding its response, the Government has to bear in mind that decisions in individual cases can have a much larger and unintended effect of negatively impacting how officers react in future situations, he added.

Singapore residents by and large trust the police in part because there is a three-part framework to ensure that officers behave lawfully, said Mr Shanmugam.

This starts with accountability at the force level, as officers wear body cameras, and there is a process to investigate any abuse of power.

Second, MHA can and has convened its independent review panel consisting of former judges and former senior public officers to independently assess the fairness of internal investigations.

Third, if potential criminal offences are uncovered, MHA will recommend court prosecution and let the courts deal with the matter.

“The supervision of the courts is an integral part of ensuring that our system functions properly,” he said.

An average of 78 police officers have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in each of the past three years, said Mr Shanmugam. Around 10 officers have been charged in court in each of these years.

The High Court case arose from an incident on July 7, 2017, after a woman called the police and alleged that a man had touched her son’s head at Suntec City.

At about 8pm, Staff Sgt Rosli and his partner found Mr Mah near a stone bench, and, with the help of two other officers, handcuffed and apprehended him under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act.

Mr Mah was held at the Central Police Division regional lock-up at about 10pm and was examined around 10.20pm by Dr Lin Hanjie, who referred him to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for treatment.

He was transferred to a padded cell before being escorted to IMH at about 3am on July 8, 2017, but was discharged from IMH that evening.

Mr Shanmugam said the court had made some comments about several issues in law that might impact how the police can exercise their powers, such as distinctions between apprehending someone under the Mental Health (Care & Treatment) Act and arrest.

In the current case, the Attorney-General had submitted that there is no practical difference between the two, and that the police may search an individual apprehended under the Act on the basis of provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.

But Justice Jeyaretnam found that the complaint received by the police against Mr Mah was not of an arrestable offence, and as such he should not have been treated as if he had been arrested for a criminal offence or have his bag searched without his consent.

Mr Shanmugam said: “We are studying the court’s comments carefully. We will then decide whether to file an application for permission to appeal, or make changes to the law as necessary to address any gaps that may have arisen between the policy intent and the position in law.”