Shore up judicial discretion in sentencing

Shore up judicial discretion in sentencing
04:45 AM Jun 19, 2012; From Winston Chew Choon Teck
I support Member of Parliament Hri Kumar Nair's call, "Judges should have more flexibility: MP" (June 16), although the issue of sentencing is a complex one, involving various considerations.
While our judges have discretion in sentencing, this is circumscribed by existing precedents, guidelines and legal principles. A judge who fails to observe these would be in dereliction of his duties, with consequences to his career.
In the case concerned, the Law Minister went some way to assuage concerns that the offender was treated lightly, as reported in "Law Minister explains Woffles Wu sentencing" (June 17, online).
The Attorney-General's Chambers also made it clear that prosecutorial discretion was exercised in deciding that it was legally appropriate to charge the offender under the Road Traffic Act, as reported in "AGC explains charges against Woffles Wu" (June 18).
But Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act does provide for a jail term of up to six months or a fine or both.
The case may highlight the need to review the entire sentencing policy and see in what circumstances judges can be given discretion to deviate from sentencing norms when merited by the circumstances.
The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 has enlarged the scope of sentencing options, but these are limited to certain categories of minor offences.
For more serious offences, which this case may be, sentencing reform would require amendments to our criminal procedural and other laws, a process which would take time for consultation with stakeholders.
While nobody can argue that punishment must fit the crime, the difficulty is in fitting this legal principle within our existing laws and making it work. The authorities may have to decide if this case is a wake-up call to pay more attention to this area.
The backlash from the case cannot be ignored. The unfounded perception, unfortunately, is that there are two sets of laws in Singapore: One for the upper echelons of society and one for the rest of us. Such perceptions are hard to change, even if unwarranted.
This is compounded by what appears to be legislative encroachments over the years.
Traditional sentencing discretion vested in judges has become increasingly curtailed by mandatory prescriptions of minimum jail terms and fines for certain offences, reducing judges to an administrative role in dispensing sentences.
At the core of this subject is the role of our judges in administering justice: Are they judicial dispensers of parliamentary intention, or do they exist to see that justice is done and the punishment fits the crime?
URL http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC120619-0000024/Shore-up-judicial-discretion-in-sentencing
===============
At:
A1:
28June2012: Judges should have more flexibility: MP (n 2 following letters)
SBY:
28June2012: Judges should have more flexibility: MP (n 2 following letters)
28June2012: Judges should have more flexibility: MP (n 2 following letters)
28June2012: Judges should have more flexibility: MP (n 2 following letters)