My email to Mr. Pritam Singh dated Sep 5, 2013 about the Constitutional right against arbitrary arrest and detention

 Attachment: RA 227_2013 Defendant's document

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 12:32 PM
To: Pritam Sing (WP)
Subject: An issue about right against arbitrary arrest

 

Dear Mr Pritam Singh,

 

I may have an issue that is deserved to be discussed in the parliament about a person’s basic right against arbitrary arrests. I am writing simply to let you know my concerns.    

 

My concerns stem from my own experience with a wrongful arrest (please see letter below for details). I sued the Attorney-General (AG) this year and the counsel of the AG won the appeal but the AG’s attitude towards the counsel’s position is very unusual.

 

If a person takes on a position in a court room, he is usually willing to confirm his position in public upon request. However, the counsel of the AG stated a position in the Court room, but the AG didn’t confirm in public this position upon my request but prefer to answer in the possible future hearings.

 

The position is about a person’s basic right against arbitrary arrests. However,the interpretation of the Constitution is independent of an individual case.

 

If a person is arrested, he is entitled to be brought within 48 hours of the arrest before a Magistrate to examine the probable cause to believe that an offence has been committed (probable cause hearing to determine the lawfulness of the arrest) . This 48-Hour rule has been accepted in most societies and  Article 9(4) of the Constitution of Singapore provides  “Where a person is arrested and not released, he shall, without unreasonable delay, and in any case within 48 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey), be produced before a Magistrate”.

 

I was arrested and detained for 21 hours before resealed on  bail (see below). When I pointed out in the court that I was not subjected to a probable cause hearing, the counsel argued that since I were released (21 hours after the arrest), there was no requirement at law to bring me before a Magistrate (See attachment). When questioned whether the police were supposed to bring me into a court before they released me, the counsel answered that this question was irrelevant to the case. When questioned whether an arrested person was entitled to a probable cause hearing, the counsel didn’t answer. The Court dismiss my appeal on 21 August without giving a reason and didn’t reply to my request to confirm the counsel’s position.

 

I put two letters on my own blogs to analyse the case. One is Criticism of the Grounds of Judgment of SUM 2310/2013, the other is Why I am suing the police and the Attorney-General.

 

When this news get widespread in the island, the MPs might consider to discuss this issue in the parliament. I talked to the MP in my GRC and the MP would write a letter to the Minister of Law.

 

Thank you for your patience and attention. If possible, I would like to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Regards,

 

Yan Jun

 

 

 

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August, 2013 09:33
To: alice_chua@agc.gov.sg
Cc: Russell LOW (AGC); SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); istana_feedback@istana.gov.sg; pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg; Lian He Wan Bao; tnp@sph.com.sg; shinmin@sph.com.sg
Subject: Open question to the Attorney-General: Is it an arrested person's fundamental right to be produced before a Magistrate within 48 hours of the arrest?

 

Dear Honourable Attorney-General (AG),

 

S 257/2013, RA 227/2013 YAN JUN v ATTORNEY GENERAL

 

1.     I refer to the above suit in which the AG was accused of “Abuse of process” for not directing the police to bring me before a Magistrate to determine the lawfulness of the arrest.

 

2.     The story is simple. I was arrested on 19 July 2009 for a breach of Personal Protection Order (PPO) but the PPO was later discovered to be expired two weeks before the arrest and no violence was disclosed. The police consulted the AGC and were directed by the AG to take no further actions against me. I was not produced before a Magistrate.

 

3.     Article 9(4) of the Constitution provides that “Where a person is arrested and not released, he shall, without unreasonable delay, and in any case within 48 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey), be produced before a Magistrate”.

 

4.     The counsel of the AG argued on 21 August that “there is no requirement at law to have been brought before a Magistrate” because I was detained less than 24 hours and was released on bail (See attachment).

 

5.     When questioned what the police officers were supposed to do before I was released the next day, the counsel answered that the question was irrelevant to this case. The counsel didn't answer my question about whether an arrested person is entitled to probable cause determination. I put a letter on my own blog about the legal arguments during the appeal.

 

6.     This case is of public interest because it concerns with a person’s fundamental right to liberty.  If the counsel is right, the Police can lawfully arrest, detain and release a person.   

 

7.     I would appreciate it if the Honourable Attorney-General confirms in public whether it is an arrested person’s constitutional right to be brought before a Magistrate within 48 hours of the arrest for probable cause determination.

 

8.     All the contents have been read out or taken as read in open court on 21 August and in the previous hearings so I forward my request to Istana feedback and Prime Minister’s Office and the Press.  

 

9.     Thank you for your patience and attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you in public.

 

Regards,

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)