No further action against officers who disclosed letters of death row inmates
Apart from a reminder of their obligations, no further action will be taken against the officers involved in the unlawful disclosure of the correspondence of 13 death row inmates.
This is because there is no basis to do so, Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said on Nov 13 in a parliamentary reply to Associate Professor Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC), adding that the prison officers had acted in good faith.
On Oct 11, the Court of Appeal found that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) were in breach of confidence and acted unlawfully over the exchange of a number of letters belonging to 13 death row inmates.
The correspondence had been sent by the inmates to various parties, including the Singapore Police Force and their lawyers.
The inmates, mostly drug offenders, had sought damages for unlawful practice, breach of confidence and copyright infringement, and had filed a civil case against AGC in July 2021.
In his reply, Mr Shanmugam noted that most of the correspondence was shared with AGC, in the context of scheduling the executions of the inmates.
He said that SPS’ practice was to keep AGC informed of developments involving these inmates 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 delayed.
“This approach was adopted out of an abundance of caution,” said Mr Shanmugam.
“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 (the inmates’) rights were not infringed in terms of further steps being taken with regard to their sentences,” he added.
He noted that the Court of Appeal ruled that the relevant prisoners’ consent, or an order of court, should have been obtained for the disclosure.
He added that 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 Prisons Regulations.
“In addition, the Court of Appeal also accepted in an earlier decision which also dealt with the disclosure of prisoners’ correspondence, 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,” he said.
Prof Lim had asked several questions including what actions are being taken against the officers and decision-makers responsible for the breaches.
Mr Shanmugam said since May 2020, SPS and AGC have instituted a policy that a prisoner’s correspondence will not be sent by the Ministry of Home Affairs or SPS to AGC, unless the prisoner’s consent, or an order of the court, has been obtained.
Said Mr Shanmugam: “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.”
The Court of Appeal judges had upheld $10 nominal damages to three prisoners granted earlier by the High Court for breach of copyright. No damages were awarded to the 13 prisoners for breach of confidence.
Responding to a question by Prof Lim on how attorney-client privilege for prisoners will be ensured, Mr Shanmugam said: “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’ foremost responsibility. This matter will be considered carefully.”
Get The New Paper on your phone with the free TNP app. Download from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store now