©New Sunday Times (Used by permission)
By Ranjeetha Pakiam
KUALA LUMPUR: The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code could mean fewer or shorter trials.
Bar Council Criminal Law Committee chairman Datuk V. Sithambaram said the new requirement for public prosecutors to provide defence lawyers with documents and other evidence ahead of a trial could result in fewer cases going to the trial stage.
"Even before the accused stands trial in court, he will know what documents will be used against him to prove his guilt," Sithambaram said yesterday.
"Consequently, the lawyer will be able to question the accused on the nature and authenticity of the evidence against him.
"On ascertaining the facts, the lawyer will then be able to advise the accused on his next move – if he has a good case, to claim trial, or if he has a bad case, to throw in the towel and plead for leniency."
This, he said, would lead to more people pleading guilty and fewer cases being brought to trial.
Sithambaram, who was part of the select committee that spent two years working on the amendments, said public prosecutors would be obliged to furnish the accused or his lawyer with written statements of evidence adverse to the prosecution’s case before the trial commenced.
He said full and frank disclosure such as this was needed as there had been cases in the past where the prosecution had withheld documents that could have shown that the accused was innocent.
On the amendment spelling an end to cautioned statements, Sithambaram said this would cut down on delays and speed up the process.
He said previous delays were caused when the court had to call for a trial–within–a–trial to determine the authenticity of the cautioned statements.
"It has come to light that police sometimes obtain cautioned statements using questionable methods.
"By doing away with cautioned statements, the police will now be forced to search thoroughly for evidence to prove that an accused is guilty.
"Previously, there was a poor quality to some of the police investigations because of the so–called 'admission' by the accused (in his cautioned statement)."
This would greatly enhance the quality of investigation and clean up the image of the police.
The amendment that called for the remand period to be set according to the severity of the crime would expedite investigations as police would have to work harder to come up with sufficient evidence in the given time.
Sithambaram said suspects would not have to face the prospect of languishing in the police lock–up for a maximum of 14 days and risk losing their jobs, as was the case previously.
The amendments to the CPC and the Penal code would only bear fruit if the number of police personnel was increased and they were provided with more resources, he said.
Related story:
NST Editorial: The right to remain silent
{moscomment}
