SINGAPORE – Some dangerous offenders in serious sexual or violent crime cases will not be automatically released after their jail terms end, especially if they show signs of reoffending, after the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill was passed in Parliament on Feb 5.

Under the Bill, there are around 20 sets of amendments, including the introduction of the Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (Sepp) law and a legislative framework for forensic medical examinations.

With the implementation of Sepp, the Home Affairs Minister, with the advice of a detention review board, will decide if an offender sentenced under the law is suitable for release, Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam had said previously.

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.

With the passing of the Bill, accused individuals who are required to take part in forensic medical examinations but refuse without reasonable excuse can be jailed for up to seven years, fined or both.

These 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.

The second reading of the Bill was debated for more than three hours, with 15 MPs and Nominated MPs posing questions on the Bill.

Mr Shanmugam, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sun Xueling and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Law Rahayu Mahzam delivered their addresses on the Bill on Feb 5 before it was passed.

“We have consulted quite extensively in preparing this Bill,” said Mr Shanmugam, adding: “The changes will do much to strengthen our criminal justice system.”

The following were some of the most-asked questions in Parliament:

1. Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio GRC), NMP Syed Harun Alhabsyi and Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) asked how many offenders are expected to be sentenced under Sepp.

Ms Rahayu said Sepp is not based on any specific crime trend, but rather, the outcome of a regular review of Singapore’s laws.

It is intended to provide the courts with an additional tool to address dangerous offenders who commit serious crimes and pose an assessed risk of committing similar crimes again in the future after release.

Ms Rahayu said that based on current statistics, there may be fewer than 30 cases a year where Sepp may be appropriate.

2. Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) asked if Sepp may not be appropriate for one-off cases.

Ms Rahayu said the court must call for an independent risk assessment report for first-time offenders, before deciding whether Sepp is appropriate.

The legislation also requires the court to be satisfied that the first-time offender poses a substantial risk or threat of causing serious physical or sexual harm to any other person or persons.

She added that for first-time offenders, Sepp should be imposed only in serious cases.

3. Mr Louis Ng (Nee Soon GRC), Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar GRC), Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC), NMP Usha Chandradas and Mr Sharael asked about the rehabilitative resources available to offenders under Sepp.

Ms Rahayu said prisoners sentenced under Sepp will be housed in line with prevailing prison policies.

Doing so will allow them to benefit from the suite of rehabilitative programmes that are available to all inmates, including work, religious and educational activities, she added.

Offenders’ suitability for such programmes will depend on their conduct, medical conditions, willingness, as well as any programme-specific requirements.

Ms Rahayu said offenders will also have access to psychology-based interventions targeting specific needs, including specific violent and sexual interventions.

4. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang GRC), Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines GRC), Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon GRC), Mr Ng, NMP Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim, Ms Soh, Ms Pereira and NMP Raj Joshua Thomas asked what the review process is like at the end of the sentence.

Ms Rahayu said the continued detention of an offender past the point of his sentence is no longer to punish the offender, but rather, to protect the public.

The review process will be a complex assessment of multiple factors including the offender’s risk of reoffending, conduct in prison, and rehabilitative progress and prospects, she added.

Mr Goh and Mr Thomas asked who will make up the detention review board.

Mr Shanmugam said in his opening address that the review board will comprise persons with high public standing and experience in forensic psychiatry, psychology or the criminal justice system.

This may include retired judges, senior lawyers, senior psychiatrists and psychologists.

5. Ms Chandradas and Mr Zhulkarnain asked about situations where a victim is unable to consent to a forensic medical examination.

Ms Rahayu said the police officer will assess and determine a victim’s ability to consent in such cases. The officer may also consult relevant experts where appropriate.

Citing a hypothetical example of a victim who is taken to the hospital unconscious, Ms Rahayu said the police will take into account the assessment of the medical professionals treating the person.

This will include details such as if and when the person is likely to regain consciousness before deciding whether to wait for the victim to regain consciousness or to proceed with the examination without consent.

6. Mr Choo and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio GRC) asked about consent requirements for minors.

Ms Rahayu said that for victims above the age of 14, their consent is required to recognise their autonomy.

This is based on a concept used in medical law stating that a person aged 14 and above would have sufficient understanding and maturity to understand proposed medical procedures and consequences.

For victims below the age of 16, the consent of the victim’s “authorised decision-maker” – a parent or guardian, for example – is required.

For victims aged between 14 and 16, it is necessary to have the consent of both the victim and the parent or guardian.

In cases where either the victim or the parent does not consent, the police will not proceed with the forensic examination.