Question:Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the Court of Appeal ruling that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) acted unlawfully by disclosing and requesting prisoners’ letters, including confidential correspondence with their lawyers (a) how will prisoners' correspondence be handled by SPS and AGC going forward; (b) how will attorney-client privilege for prisoners be ensured; (c) what actions are being taken against the officers and decision-makers responsible for the breaches; and (d) what remedies will be provided to affected prisoners or their families.
Answer:
Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law:
1. The Court of Appeal ruling was delivered in a case brought by
thirteen Prisoners Awaiting Capital Punishment (PACPs) at the time of application. In
essence, they filed legal proceedings seeking various remedies, on the basis that the
Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had
breached their right to confidentiality under civil law, as SPS had extended copies of their
correspondence to AGC.
2. It has been explained to the Court of Appeal why these documents were disclosed to
AGC. Most of these documents were shared with AGC, in the context of scheduling the
executions of PACPs. SPS’s practice was to keep AGC informed of developments
involving these PACPs, and to seek legal advice on whether there were any relevant
pending proceedings, or issues which could give rise to such proceedings, that would
require the capital sentence to be held in abeyance. This approach was adopted out of an
abundance of caution. The officers who disclosed the documents believed in good faith
that they could be shared with AGC, for the purpose of seeking legal advice on
scheduling, and ensuring that PACPs’ rights were not infringed in terms of further steps
being taken with regard to their sentences.
3. The Court of Appeal ruled that the relevant prisoners’ consent, or an order of court,
should have been obtained for the disclosure.
4. The Court of Appeal said that 3 out of the 13 prisoners were entitled to damages –
but only nominal damages of $10 each, for a breach of copyright. The Court of Appeal
was of the view that there was no basis for the prisoners’ claims for further damages.
5. The Court also noted that no breach of confidence arose from SPS officers opening
or perusing any of the documents, because they were entitled to do so under the Prisons
Regulations. In addition, the Court of Appeal also accepted in an earlier decision which
also dealt with the disclosure of prisoners’ correspondence1, that although there was
oversight by AGC when it received correspondence from SPS, there was not an attempt
to seek any advantage in court proceedings.
6. Since May 2020, SPS and AGC have instituted a policy that a prisoner’s
correspondence will not be sent by Ministry of Home Affairs or SPS to AGC, unless the
prisoner’s consent, or an order of the court, has been obtained.
7. Our agencies do their best to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the
law. Occasionally, there may be lapses. Here the lapses were such that the Court ordered
$10 in damages each, to three of the applicants. SPS has put in place measures to prevent
a reoccurrence.
8. In this case, the officers were acting in good faith. AGC and SPS have reminded
their officers of their obligations following the court’s decision. No further action will be
taken against them as there is no basis to do so.
9. The member has also asked how attorney-client privilege for prisoners will be
ensured. Under the Prisons Regulations, letters to or from a prisoner’s legal adviser
cannot be copied or withheld. However, this privilege cannot be at the expense of
ensuring security and good order of prisons, which is SPS’s foremost responsibility. This
matter will be considered carefully.
[1] Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal [2020] 2 SLR 883
