District Judge Chee Min Ping:
Introduction
The accused, Mr Yan Jun, faced a single charge, MAC-908017-2018, a charge under s 179 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). At the commencement of trial, the charge was read and explained to Mr Yan, and his plea was taken. As Mr Yan did not state his plea, the court proceeded to hear the case against Mr Yan. Mr Yan was ultimately convicted of the charge and sentenced to 8 weeks’ imprisonment, ordered to commence from the date of the expiry of his prior imprisonment term, as Mr Yan was, as at the date that sentence was passed, still serving sentence for other offences.
Charge
The amended charge (“Charge”) brought by the prosecution was framed in the following terms:
You, [Yan Jun], are charged that you, on 26 February 2018, at about 10.52 am, inside cell 10-M of Central Division lock-up located at 391 New Bridge Road, Singapore, being legally bound under section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, “CPC”) to state the truth on the subject of your public assembly on 22 February 2018, to SSSGT Ahmad Salihin bin Mashadi, a public servant, did refuse to answer questions demanded of you touching that subject by the said SSSGT Ahmad Salihin bin Mashadi, in the exercise of the legal powers of the said SSSGT Ahmad Salihin bin Mashadi, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 179 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).
The Public Prosecutor’s consent under s 10(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) was tendered in proceedings.
Prosecution’s case
The prosecution called one witness, Senior Staff Sergeant Ahmad Salihin bin Mashadi (“PW1”). The prosecution informed the court at the commencement of the prosecution’s case that the remaining witnesses listed on the list of exhibits would not be called as prosecution witnesses, but have been made available for the defence.
PW1 stated that he is a police officer employed by the Singapore Police Force, and that his scope of work included conducting patrols in prevention of crime, and the conduct of investigations into reported criminal offences to determine whether a criminal offence is disclosed. PW1 testified that the Police had received information that on 22 February 2018, Mr Yan intended to conduct a protest at the Raffles Place at about 12 noon. An email dated 19 February 2018 was tendered and marked P1, addressed to the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, and signed off “Yan Jun”. The said email, which stated that the sender was going to conduct a protest at the Raffles Place MRT station on 22 February 2018 at 12 noon, was also copied to a large number of other recipients. The Singapore Police Force was not on the list of recipients.
PW1 stated that he was assigned as an investigation officer to conduct investigations due to the information received about the possible protest on 22 February 2018 at 12 noon, at the Raffles Place MRT station. Eventually, Mr Yan was arrested at the Raffles Place MRT station on 22 February 2018. Mr Yan was produced in court on 23 February 2018 and further remanded in the Central Police Division to assist in investigations until 26 February 2018. PW1 stated that in investigations, typically, investigation officers seek to gather physical and documentary evidence, as well as record statements from relevant parties and obtained the relevant video footages, if any.
PW1 stated that he was empowered under s 22 of the CPC to record statements from accused persons. However, he was not able to record statements from Mr Yan Jun as the latter refused to talk to PW1. PW1 stated that he had tried unsuccessfully on a total of 6 occasions to approach Mr Yan Jun for the purpose of recording a statement, and had recorded two statements from Mr Yan without Mr Yan’s cooperation. PW1 testified as to the attempts made to obtain a statement from Mr Yan in chronological order, as follows: On the first occasion, on 22 February 2018 between 2.48 to 3.10 pm, PW1 requested to see Mr Yan at the interview room to record a statement. Mr Yan informed one Station Inspector Azri that he would be exercising his rights to remain silent and refused to be taken out from his cell. PW1 approached Mr Yan at his cell 10-M, and noted that Mr Yan was lying on the ground, curled up with a blanket covering his body and legs and with eyes closed. PW1 introduced himself as the investigation officer, and Mr Yan replied with “I am not talking to you. On what legal basis must I talk to you?” Mr Yan then turned away and returned to his original lying position. Mr Yan closed his eyes and ignored PW1, who then left cell 10-M. PW1 stated that he did not ask any questions on this occasion, because the first approach was made for the purpose of assessing Mr Yan’s demeanour. On the second occasion, on 22 February 2018 at about 3.23 pm, PW1 went to cell 10-M together with Inspector Farid. Inspector Farid introduced himself to Mr Yan, and Mr Yan did not acknowledge Inspector Farid. At 3.26 pm, Mr Yan told Inspector Farid to go away, curled up on the ground, and faced the interior wall of the cell (which had three walls (left wall, interior wall and right wall) with one bed). Inspector Farid told Mr Yan that his refusal to give a statement to a public servant could amount to an offence. Mr Yan continued to ignore Inspector Farid. At 3.30 pm on the same day, PW1 and Inspector Farid left cell 10-M, as PW 1 wanted to give Mr Yan more time to calm down before a statement was recorded. On the third occasion, on 22 February 2018 at about 7.09 pm, PW1 requested to interview Mr Yan at the Central Police Division lock-up. At 7.22 pm, Station Inspector Ravi informed that Mr Yan did not respond to officers when they called his name. PW1 proceeded to cell 10-M at 7.23 pm, and noticed that Mr Yan was lying face-up on the ground within the cell, with his eyes closed. PW1 introduced himself to Mr Yan. Mr Yan then turned to his right, and shifted his body towards the interior wall, curled up and faced the interior wall, covering himself with a blanket. PW1 explained that if he chooses to remain silent, an adverse inference could be drawn. He remained silent. PW1 then suggested that it would be better for him to talk to PW1. PW1 also cautioned that a refusal to answer questions posed to him amounts to an offence. Mr Yan kept silent and ignored PW1. PW1 then proceeded to record Mr Yan’s statement outside cell 10-M. Mr Yan’s back was turned to PW1, and Mr Yan ignored PW1. After posing 17 questions, and allowing for pauses in between each question) PW1 noted down Mr Yan’s physical responses. PW1 then read back the questions and what he had noted down, and asked if Mr Yan wished to make any amendments to the statement. The purpose of doing so was to allow Mr Yan an opportunity to answer PW1. Mr Yan continued to ignore PW1. PW1 informed Mr Yan that Mr Yan was required to sign on the statement under s 22(3)(d) of the CPC. Mr Yan kept quiet and continued to curl up with his back to PW1. PW1 then left cell 10-M. On the fourth occasion, on 23 February 2018, at about 9.49 am, PW1 requested for an interview with Mr Yan. Staff Sergeant Lawrence informed that Mr Yan refused to respond to him. At 9.58 am, PW1 proceeded to cell 10-M, and noted that Mr Yan was curling up on the ground with his back to the door, and was facing the interior wall. PW1 introduced himself to Mr Yan and informed the latter that PW1 will be recording a statement under s 22 of the CPC. PW1 also asked if Mr Yan was prepared to give his statement. Mr Yan kept his silence and continued to face the interior wall. PW1 decided to give Mr Yan more time to calm himself down before recording a statement from him. On the fifth occasion, on 24 February 2018, at 11.01 am, PW1 requested to interview Mr Yan. PW1 was informed that Mr Yan did not consume his breakfast that morning, and if he fails to consume lunch, the in-house doctor will be activated. PW1 was waiting at interview room 11, when he heard shouting outside the interview room at about 11.10 am. He opened the door and realised that Mr Yan was escorted to the interview room in a wheelchair. PW1 refused to stand up from his wheelchair. PW1 stated that he will be recording a statement from Mr Yan under s 22 of the CPC and asked if Mr Yan was prepared to give a statement. Mr Yan said “No use, I won’t cooperate.” PW1 testified that at this point, Mr Yan was shouting and aggressive. Mr Yan was escorted to a bench, and since Mr Yan refused to sit down, AETOS officers used necessary force to ensure that Mr Yan sat on the bench. Mr Yan placed both his legs onto the table twice. As PW1 observed redness on his wrists and legs, PW1 directed for in-house doctor to assess Mr Yan, and to offer Mr Yan food every hour and return Mr Yan to the cell. PW1 then left interview room 11. On the sixth occasion, on 24 February 2018 at about 8.55 pm, PW1 requested for an interview with Mr Yan. Staff Sergeant Lawrence informed that Mr Yan shook his head when he was asked if he wanted to see the investigation officer. PW1 proceeded to cell 10-M to speak to Mr Yan. Mr Yan was pacing the cell when PW1 arrived. Upon seeing PW1, Mr Yan lay down and faced the interior wall of the cell, and ignored PW1 while PW1 informed him that PW1 will be recording a statement under s 22 of the CPC. PW1 then left the cell at 9.04 pm, as he wanted to give the accused the opportunity to calm down. On the seventh occasion, on 25 February 2018 at 11.06 am, PW1 requested to interview Mr Yan, and was informed that the latter refused to be interviewed. PW1 proceeded to cell 10-M and noticed that Mr Yan was curled up on the ground. PW1 informed Mr Yan that he would be recording Mr Yan’s statement under s 22 of the CPC. Mr Yan stood up, walked to PW1, and stated that “It is unlawful for you to force me to give statement. Let me make it clear to you. I am not giving my...
