2024年5月8日，新加坡內政部長尚穆根在國會書面答覆盛港集選區議員何廷儒女士《精神健康（護理和治療）法》中的「拘捕」與其他條款中的「逮捕」之間的實際差異問題。

以下內容為新加坡眼根據國會英文資料翻譯整理：

何廷儒（盛港集選區議員）女士詢問內政部長：(a) 能否詳細說明總檢察長在最近一個案件中提出的意見，該意見指出，2008 年《精神健康（護理和治療）法》（MHCTA）中使用的「拘捕」與其他涉及使用警察權力的條款中使用的「逮捕」之間沒有實際差異？(b) 已經採取或將採取哪些具體措施來保障根據《精神健康（護理和治療）法》 被拘捕人員的憲法權利？

尚穆根（內政部長）先生：在高等法院「Mah Kiat Seng 訴總檢察長」一案中（Mah Kiat Seng vs AG），總檢察長辦公室認為，2008年《精神健康（護理和治療）法》（MHCTA） 中使用的「拘捕」一詞與其他立法（如《刑事訴訟法》CPC）中使用的「逮捕」一詞並無實際區別。這是在解釋警方在「拘捕」和「逮捕」方面的法律權力和職責時向法庭提出的一個法律論點，因為《刑事訴訟法》只明確規定了「逮捕」的權力，而沒有規定「拘捕」的權力。

正如內政部第二部長在《執法和其他事項法案》二讀期間所解釋的，高等法院在 2023 年的判決中裁定，《精神健康（護理和治療）法》規定的「拘押」有別於《刑事訴訟法》規定的「逮捕」。這意味著警方在行使「拘捕」時並沒有某些與「逮捕」相關的權力。

例如，警方無法確保根據《精神健康（護理和治療）法》「拘捕」的人在移交給醫療機構工作人員之前沒有藏匿危險武器或物品。這種做法是站不住腳的，因為這會危及被「拘捕」者、警察和醫務人員的安全。

因此，我們已修訂法律，明確規定警方在根據《精神健康（護理和治療）法》進行「拘捕」時，也可以行使「逮捕」相關的基本權力，例如搜查和扣押。儘管如此，警方將以應有的審慎和尊重態度，對根據《精神健康（護理和治療）法》被「拘捕」的人進行搜查和扣押。那些僅根據《精神健康（護理和治療）法》被「拘捕」的人將被帶到醫生那裡，而不是被帶到警方的拘留所。他們也不會被起訴。

這些修正案不影響根據《精神健康（護理和治療）法》被」拘捕」的人的憲法權利。

以下是英文質詢內容：

Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether an elaboration can be provided on the Attorney-General’s submissions made in a recent case which stated that there was no practical difference between the terms 「apprehend」 as deployed in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 (MHCTA) and 「arrest」 as utilised in other provisions involving the use of police powers; and (b) what specific steps have been or will be taken to safeguard the constitutional right of persons apprehended under the MHCTA.

Mr K Shanmugam: In the High Court case of Mah Kiat Seng vs AG, the Attorney-General’s Chambers took the position that there was no practical difference between the terms 「apprehend」, as used in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 or MHCTA, and 「arrest」, as used in other legislation, such as the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC. This was a legal argument raised before the court, in the context of explaining the Police’s legal powers and duties in relation to apprehensions and arrests, as the CPC only explicitly specifies the powers of arrest and not apprehension.

As explained by the Second Minister for Home Affairs during the Second Reading of the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill, the High Court judgment in 2023 determined that apprehensions under the MHCTA are distinct from arrests under the CPC. This meant that the Police would not have certain powers associated with arrest, when making apprehensions.

For example, the Police would not be able to ensure that a person apprehended under the MHCTA was not hiding dangerous weapons or items before the individual is handed over to the staff of a medical facility. This is not tenable, as it endangers the safety of the apprehended individual, Police officers and the medical staff.

未完待续,请点击[下一页]继续阅读

We have thus amended the law to make clear that essential powers associated with arrests, such as those of search and seizure, are also available to the Police when making apprehensions under the MHCTA. Nevertheless, Police officers will carry out search and seizure of persons apprehended under the MHCTA with due care and respect. Those who are apprehended solely under the MHCTA would be brought to a medical practitioner and not to a Police lock-up. They would also not be prosecuted.

These amendments do not affect the constitutional rights of a person apprehended under the MHCTA.

HQ丨編輯

HQ丨編審

新加坡國會丨來源