Attorney-General’s Chambers, Upper Pickering Street
This paper by TWC2 shines a light on Singapore’s use of stern warnings in lieu of prosecution.
Stern warnings do not carry any legal effect on recipients or bind the issuing authority. Despite being a fairly common outcome following criminal investigations, the criteria and evidential thresholds for issuing stern warnings remain opaque. They are also rarely subject to judicial scrutiny. Despite warnings having no bearing on an individual’s legal rights and freedoms, they do have practical effects on individuals receiving them. In particular, we found that the issuance of stern warnings had an adverse impact on the ability of low-wage migrant workers to seek re-employment.
Through a comparative analysis of Singapore’s stern warning system and the English caution system, this paper recommends the implementation of safeguards similar to the latter to avoid the risk of subjecting potentially innocent recipients to the unwitting consequences of receiving a stern warning.
There is scant information accessible through sporadic official releases, legal blogs, academic papers, and select High Court rulings about Singapore’s use of stern warnings. In contrast, England’s Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provide detailed guidelines for issuing “cautions”, which are similar to Singapore’s stern warnings. The comparison detailed in our study offers a framework to understand the difference in approaches between the two systems.
England’s cautions — unlike Singapore’s stern warnings — are subject to rigorous limitations. They are issued only if a “realistic prospect of conviction” exists. A caution is issued only upon (a) the suspect’s unequivocal admission of guilt during investigations and (b) acceptance of a caution. Interviewing officers are prohibited from offering a caution to obtain an admission of guilt. Overall, England’s system restrains the police from issuing a caution in instances where they may believe the suspect is guilty but the police are unable to or choose not to establish sufficient evidence to prosecute. Insufficient evidence for prosecution mandates dismissing the case without further action.
In contrast, in Singapore a stern warning is issued unilaterally by the authority regardless of whether the recipient had admitted to the offence at any point during investigations or criminal proceedings. Notably, in Singapore, stern warnings seem to be issued, amongst other reasons, when there is a lack of sufficient evidence to establish a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt and irrespective of the recipient’s acceptance or admission of guilt. This leaves a real possibility of a warning being issued to an individual who is factually innocent.
England widely employs cautions as out-of-court disposals. Singapore employs stern warnings for the same purpose too. However, besides having more robust safeguards, statistics are available in England, therefore promoting accountability, whereas in Singapore, overall statistics are unavailable. Furthermore, the effect of a stern warning on other aspects, such as the recipient’s employability, reputation, or procedural fairness, is rarely discussed in our public discourse.
The opacity of the practice of stern warnings also invites speculation about the motives behind the issuing decision. When stern warnings are being issued despite weak evidence, they could be construed as an attempt to boost the issuing authority’s reputation for dealing with crimes swiftly at the risk of the warning being issued to potentially innocent individuals.
The paper (16 pages, PDF) can be downloaded by clicking the icon at left.