- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
- Points
- 0
Courts must consider making crooks compensate victims: CJ
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
THE courts will have to at least consider making criminals pay compensation to their victims, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has said.
In the past they had been reluctant to order this kind of compensation.
But Chief Justice Chan said it is now mandatory for them to consider it under the new Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which came into effect on Sunday.
This will help victims who are too poor to sue for damages, he said.
He made the comments during a case in which a man was convicted of breaking the nose of a good Samaritan who stepped in to stop him from hitting his daughter.
In a highly unusual move, the High Court suggested he pay the victim $1,000 in compensation.
The attack happened at the Serangoon Bus Interchange on July 5.
Onlooker Abdul Hamid Hassan, who is in his 40s, stepped in to help after seeing the man slapping his daughter's face and neck, and pinching her forearm.
She had earlier spilled water on his trousers because she was angry with him for delaying their bus journey by spending too long talking to his friends.
Mr Hamid told the father, 56, to stop beating the nine-year-old girl, not knowing she was his daughter.
The offender told him to mind his own business, hurled a racial insult at him and punched him on the nose. He was fined $3,500 in the subordinate courts for causing hurt. Prosecutors launched an appeal to the High Court asking for him to be jailed. They argued that the racial slur was an aggravating factor.
But Chief Justice Chan dismissed the appeal, saying the attack was not racially motivated. In his judgment grounds published earlier this week, he said the father, who was not named, simply 'lost his cool'.
He ruled that a more appropriate 'additional punishment' would be for him to pay compensation to the victim on top of the $3,500 fine. The father, defended by lawyer Tay San Lee, had offered to pay the $1,000 on the day of the appeal in July after the court suggested it.
'Since the (offender) was willing to pay compensation of $1,000 to the victim as an expression of his remorse, I decided to record the willingness to pay the compensation,' said Chief Justice Chan.
The new CPC is set to be a game-changer for compensation orders. Previously, judges had discretion over whether they should be awarded.
Chief Justice Chan said courts have been reluctant to exercise this power in recent years. Although they have begun to make such orders, 'they have yet to develop an established practice of doing so'.
He added that a heavy jail term or fine alone would be 'cold comfort' to a victim who has experienced pain and suffering and has to bear the burden of medical bills, lost wages and other expenses.
'A compensation order is therefore an efficient process to compel offenders to pay damages to the victims without having to waste the economic and judicial resources involved in the prosecution of a civil claim,' he added.
But he made clear that compensation orders were not intended to allow those convicted to buy their way out of paying the penalty for a crime.
Lawyers said the Chief Justice's remarks signalled that compensation orders will be now be part of the checklist on the table of judges when punishments are considered. Lawyer Amolat Singh said the size of similar claims in the civil courts could be used as a guide for criminal compensation.
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
THE courts will have to at least consider making criminals pay compensation to their victims, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has said.
In the past they had been reluctant to order this kind of compensation.
But Chief Justice Chan said it is now mandatory for them to consider it under the new Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which came into effect on Sunday.
This will help victims who are too poor to sue for damages, he said.
He made the comments during a case in which a man was convicted of breaking the nose of a good Samaritan who stepped in to stop him from hitting his daughter.
In a highly unusual move, the High Court suggested he pay the victim $1,000 in compensation.
The attack happened at the Serangoon Bus Interchange on July 5.
Onlooker Abdul Hamid Hassan, who is in his 40s, stepped in to help after seeing the man slapping his daughter's face and neck, and pinching her forearm.
She had earlier spilled water on his trousers because she was angry with him for delaying their bus journey by spending too long talking to his friends.
Mr Hamid told the father, 56, to stop beating the nine-year-old girl, not knowing she was his daughter.
The offender told him to mind his own business, hurled a racial insult at him and punched him on the nose. He was fined $3,500 in the subordinate courts for causing hurt. Prosecutors launched an appeal to the High Court asking for him to be jailed. They argued that the racial slur was an aggravating factor.
But Chief Justice Chan dismissed the appeal, saying the attack was not racially motivated. In his judgment grounds published earlier this week, he said the father, who was not named, simply 'lost his cool'.
He ruled that a more appropriate 'additional punishment' would be for him to pay compensation to the victim on top of the $3,500 fine. The father, defended by lawyer Tay San Lee, had offered to pay the $1,000 on the day of the appeal in July after the court suggested it.
'Since the (offender) was willing to pay compensation of $1,000 to the victim as an expression of his remorse, I decided to record the willingness to pay the compensation,' said Chief Justice Chan.
The new CPC is set to be a game-changer for compensation orders. Previously, judges had discretion over whether they should be awarded.
Chief Justice Chan said courts have been reluctant to exercise this power in recent years. Although they have begun to make such orders, 'they have yet to develop an established practice of doing so'.
He added that a heavy jail term or fine alone would be 'cold comfort' to a victim who has experienced pain and suffering and has to bear the burden of medical bills, lost wages and other expenses.
'A compensation order is therefore an efficient process to compel offenders to pay damages to the victims without having to waste the economic and judicial resources involved in the prosecution of a civil claim,' he added.
But he made clear that compensation orders were not intended to allow those convicted to buy their way out of paying the penalty for a crime.
Lawyers said the Chief Justice's remarks signalled that compensation orders will be now be part of the checklist on the table of judges when punishments are considered. Lawyer Amolat Singh said the size of similar claims in the civil courts could be used as a guide for criminal compensation.
