The Criminal Procedure Code

Among the amendments that are considered as pro-victim in the coun­try’s Criminal Procedure Code are the victim impact statement and the awarding of compensation to victims of crime.

The victim impact statement is a statement of a victim regarding the impact of a crime committed by the offender against the victim. Included in the Criminal Procedure Code in 2012 where it allows victims to express grievances using a ‘systematic mechanism’ before the court.^[935] Section 183A of the Criminal Procedure Code deals specifically with victim impact statements.^[936] Subsection 183A (1) states that the court may only grant such a statement to be made by the victim or his/her family member upon their request and that such a statement must be presented before the court passes the sentence. However, the section does not detail how the court should regard the statement; through an informal interview with a court official, it appears that some judges regard the statement as an aggravating factor, while others do not. Subsection 183A(2) further explains that in cases where the victim or his/her member of family failed to appear before the court after requesting to present such a statement, the court may admit a written statement detailing the impact.

Section 426 (1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code allowed a certain amount of compensation to be paid to the victims of crimes. Such compensation is only awarded through application made by the public prosecutor and not the victim. Furthermore, the amount of compensation could be considered small, and in most cases it is awarded to replace value of stolen property, such as in cases of theft. The previous position was that a victim could only obtain compensation through a personal civil suit filed against the offender, and this remains the case if the victim is attempting to obtain compensation for anything other than the value of his/her stolen property, such as fear, physical pain, trauma, loss of income or medical costs.

Another practice that was inserted into the Criminal Procedure Code in 2012 is that of plea bargaining. Nevertheless, lawyers and public pros­ecutors are of the opinion that plea bargaining has been in practice for several years already, albeit unofficially. The practice, which is basically a form of mediation, was officially recognised with the insertion of section 172C; this lays out the procedures in conducting plea bargaining. Essentially, plea bargaining is viewed as a practical method to reduce backlog of criminal cases where the accused’s acceptance of the pro­posed sentence or charge would definitely save the court’s time and public’s expenses, compared to if a trial were to be conducted, which would probably be time-consuming.^[937] Moreover, some judges considered that such a practice led to the accused pleading guilty, though to a lesser charge or punishment, thus encouraging honesty on the part of the accused to plead their guilt and that it might indirectly influence other criminals to do the same as well.^[938] In PP v. Jessica Lim Lu Ping, the judge observed that expediting the disposal of criminal cases and sentencing the accused who pleads guilty with a lenient punishment are in the public interest.^[939]

B.