Criminal Law: Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and Sentencing

This assignment analyzes a criminal law case involving Johnson Nonsense (JN), focusing on his arrest, detention, and subsequent legal proceedings. The analysis examines the legality of JN's detention, considering whether he was informed of the grounds for his arrest and if his right to legal counsel was violated. It assesses the admissibility of evidence, including JN's statements and CCTV footage, while addressing hearsay evidence objections. The assignment also covers the burden and standard of proof required for the court to call on JN to enter his defense, and determines the maximum and minimum jail terms JN could face. Finally, the analysis addresses the grounds for a potential appeal and the legality of sentencing orders, providing a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure and evidence law in Singapore, along with relevant legal principles and case analysis.

CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure & Law of Evidence

CRIMINAL LAW
For how long can JN be detained without a court order
According to the Singapore Law, an individual can be detained without a court order if they are
18 years old and above (Cheah, 2016). Detention without court order should not exceed 48
hours. The maximum time that JN can be detained without a court order is 48 hours after which a
court order should be sort to extend the detention.
Was the detention Lawful
No, the detention was not lawful. Even though the detention was for 48 hours as stipulated in the
constitution there are certain aspects that were ignored thus making the whole detention
unlawful. Article 9 and section 3 of the Singapore constitutions dictates that where a person is
arrested, they shall be informed as soon as possible on the grounds of their arrest (Ling-shen,
2012). Moreover, they shall be allowed to not only consult but also be defended by a lawyer of
their choice. JM was not informed within reasonable time the reason for their arrest and was
denied his request for a lawyer thus making this detention unlawful.
Does JN have a right to consult his lawyer as requested
Yes. JN has a right to consult a lawyer as requested. However, this request may be denied if
there is a doubt that it will interfere with the investigation.
According to article 9 of the constitution, upon arrival at the police station or detention center an
accused individual is allowed to consult a lawyer within a reasonable amount of time while still
under police custody. Besides, family members may also be contacted within a reasonable time
(Muk & Chin, 2015).
Can he be tried for all the charges at the same time

CRIMINAL LAW
Yes, he will be charged for all the charges and crimes he had committed.
However, the sentencing will be different based on the court’s decision.
This will be according to the issue consecutive and concurrent sentencing.
Is the order Legal
The order is legal. This is so because even though the offense is bailable, the court may decide to
deny the accused a bail. This may happen in a case where the accused has been accused of an
offense that is not a fine-only offence. In this case, JN has been accused on an offense that is not
affine-only offence, as such the order of not granting bail is legal.
Advise him on whether his statement is admissible as evidence and what the effect is in the
event the statement is admitted as evidence.
Within the Singapore legal system, there are certain statutes such as the Evidence Act which
monitor and regulate the use of evidence in court systems in the country. According to this Act, a
person who admits or asserts something to be a fact, they have the burden of proving that fact.
Section 6 to 57 of the Evidence Act provides a list of scenarios and situations when evidence
may be deemed as relevant in the court of law (Ngiam & Tung, 2016). Evidence may be
admissible in the court of law if is documented and includes witness statements or oral
statements. Sound and video recordings are also considered admissible in the court of law.
There is a written confession of him on the crime and a CCTV footage of the previous act, so
yes, his statements are admissible evidence in the court of law.
Can the defense object to the testimony of Clueless

CRIMINAL LAW
Yes, the defense can object the testimony of Clueless because it is just a mere hearsay. Hearsay
evidence refers to all the assertions of persons either documented or orally made out of court
made with the aim to prove facts which have previously been mentioned. Such evidence is
inadmissible in the court of law and as such the defense can object to such testimony (Radics,
2013).
At this stage of the trial, explain the burden and standard of proof for the Court to decide
whether or not to call on JN to enter in his defense
In such a case, the prosecution has to determine whether the case is strong enough for the
accused to answer the charge. Here the court may decide asks the accused to present their
defense. It is important to note that the evidence provided herein must be overwhelming enough.
The accused may be asked to take the stand and asked questions from the prosecutor regarding
the matter presented.
What is the maximum and minimum jail term that JN will serve
The maximum number of year that JN can serve in this particular case is 15 years while the
minimum is 10 years. This is so because when an offender is convicted on multiple charges a
sentence is imposed on each charge but if the sentence includes imprisonment the court has to
decide whether or not these sentences shall be run concurrently or consecutively. This is in
regard to the application of the one-transaction and totality principle respectively. Based on the
fact that when there are three or more sentences, then two of the sentences must run
consecutively thus making the minimum number of years 10 and the maximum number would be
15.
On what will be the grounds of his appeal

CRIMINAL LAW
If he’s JN is not happy with the decision of the court he may file an appeal and the grounds of his
appeal may be on unlawful detention. As indicated above, JN was unlawfully detained since he
was not informed on the reason for his arrest. Moreover, he was denied the request to see his
layer when he asked for one.
Is the order legal
No, the order is not legal. According to the law, when one has been sentenced to canning and
imprisonment, it is a requirement that the canning is inflicted only until after the period under
which the sentence can be appealed (Wong, 2017). Moreover, if an appeal has been made then
there shall be no canning until after the end of the appeal and not seven days after the conviction
as indicated in this case. So yes, the order is not legal.
Advise to Hum Sup Kwai
According to the penal code 354(1), individuals found in violation of this code shall be punished
with imprisonment that shall not exceed 2 years, canning, a fine or a combination on any of these
punishments.
a) Supreme court
b) High court
c) Supreme court

CRIMINAL LAW
References
Cheah, W. L. (2016). An Overview of the Singapore War Crimes Trials (1946-1948):
Prosecuting Lower-Level Accused. Sing. L. Rev., 34, 1.
Ling-shen, J. I. A. N. G. (2012). A Comment on Legal Basis of Singapore's Caning. Hebei Law
Science, (2), 23.
Muk, J., & Chin, R. (2015). Sections 299 and 300 of the Penal Code: A revisit and further
suggested amendments. Singapore Law Review, 33.
Ngiam, X. Y., & Tung, S. S. (2016). The acceptability of caning children in Singapore: the fine
line between discipline and physical maltreatment. Journal of Developmental &
Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(2), 158-163.
Radics, G. B. (2013). Decolonizing Singapore's Sex Laws: Tracing Section 377A of Singapore's
Penal Code. Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev., 45, 57.
Wong, L. (2017). The 29th Singapore Law Review Annual Lecture (19 October 2017):
Prosecution in the Public Interest. Sing. L. Rev., 35, 31.

CRIMINAL LAW