 Dealing with discord: CJ Chan said that 'emotions prevail over common sense' in neighbourly squabbles. The Everitt Roas dispute is one such example. -- ST File Photo
by Selina Lum
• Assault cases: Victims' redress law may be
'activated'
• Traffic offences: Bid to speed up civil claims
• Shoplifting: More sentencing options for offenders
THE increasing number of squabbles between neighbours has
prompted a separate court to be set up.
A specialised court known as the Neighbourhood Court will be where such disputes
are heard from next Thursday.
The Neighbourhood Court will be presided over by legally qualified Justices of
the Peace, the same people who can solemnise marriages.
The idea is for these specialist magistrates to take a conciliatory approach in
handling such cases. If all else fails, they have the sentencing powers to
impose fines or jail terms on the offenders.
Figures from the Subordinate Courts show a 56 per cent increase in the number of
magistrate's complaints involving neighbourly quarrels filed over a three-year
period.
In 2004, 2,367 complaints were filed. The number grew steadily to 3,716 last
year.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said that the rising trend was not surprising given
the high population density here.
The CJ said there was a need to reduce anti-social behaviour which caused
'stress, tension and disharmony' in the community.
The traditional route for the aggrieved parties involved in such conflicts is to
seek redress through the criminal justice system.
But punishing the wrongdoers does not get to the root of the problem, he said.
'These are essentially social disputes where, more often than not, emotions
prevail over common sense,' said CJ Chan.
The Neighbourhood Court will adopt a 'problem-solving approach'. Parties are
expected to make a serious effort to sort out their differences at the Community
Mediation Centre (CMC) before having their case heard in the Neighbourhood
Court.
The list has yet to be finalised but at least two Justices of the Peace will be
appointed as magistrates to this court.
The two, Mr Shriniwas Rai and Mr Lee Chow Soon, are practising lawyers who have
each spent about two years as mediators.
Mr Rai, 61, said: 'Most of us are senior citizens and we have the life
experience to deal with these matters.'
Added Mr Lee, 68: 'We have a lot of experience at the grassroots level and we
understand the problems on the ground.'
Mr Rai recalled a case he had handled between a Singapore woman and her
neighbour, a man from China.
The man alleged that she had placed unwanted items outside her flat, while she
alleged that he had made obscene remarks. Both filed private summonses against
each other.
After two attempts over two months, Mr Rai convinced them that it was futile to
incur legal fees over such trivial matters. They later dropped their complaints.
The two new magistrates hope that they will not be called upon to exercise their
sentencing powers.
'We still hope we can bring about a settlement between parties,' said Mr Lee.
Victims' redress law may be 'activated'
Provision would help assault victims obtain compensation
from their attackers without having to file civil suit
by Teh Joo Lin
IT IS a law that was put in place more than 100 years ago but
has rarely been applied.
The provision, which is in the Criminal Procedure Code, allows a judge to order
a convicted person to compensate his victim for the harm he has caused - either
bodily injuries or damage to his property. This is on top of any jail term or
fine imposed for the crime.
CJ Chan Sek Keong has asked the Subordinate Courts to study the feasibility of
'activating' this provision, which he said has never been applied here, to the
best of his knowledge.
Doing this would help 'poor and helpless victims' get justice in the form of
compensation, CJ Chan said.
He cited an example where the court punishes an offender for hurting his victim.
'But, more often than not, the victim ends up with no remedy for his injury,
because he cannot afford the legal cost of suing his attacker for damages,' CJ
Chan said.
At present, victims who want financial compensation for the harm and hurt they
have suffered have to seek civil recourse, lawyers explained. Even for a
straightforward case, legal bills can come up to about $1,500.
'To get $500 for his medical bills, the victim will have to spend $1,500,' said
lawyer Amolat Singh. 'Many people just give up. If the provision is more
actively used, the poor victim need not spend even more money.' The civil
process can also take a few months, he added.
The Subordinate Courts will study the feasibility of a set of compensation rules
to help judges decide how much to award in 'certain appropriate categories of
cases'.
Lawyers said these should include simple crimes such as minor hurt, vandalism
and theft.
In practice, an informal form of compensation has been taking place, criminal
lawyer Subhas Anandan said. For example, a person accused of cheating returns
the money or stolen goods. A person charged with assault can pay for his
victim's medical bills.
Such acts form part of the accused person's mitigation, to ask the court to mete
out a lighter sentence, said Mr Anandan.
Lawyer S.K. Kumar raised a 'grey area' he feels should be studied: What if the
convicted criminal cannot pay?
'If the accused is poor, he might have to serve a default jail sentence in lieu
of payment,' said Mr Kumar. 'And then, if the victim goes to the civil courts
after that, should he still be entitled to claim?'
Lawyers also say that victims who receive compensation in a criminal case can
make a civil claim if they wish.
Bid to speed up civil claims
by Chong Chee Kin
ONE in five civil claims before the Subordinate Courts
involving injuries from a traffic accident also involved a criminal charge
against a motorist who flouted the law.
The current practice in such cases is to prosecute the motorist first before a
civil claim is made, if an offence - such as negligence, rashness or driving
when drunk - had been committed during the accident.
Sometimes, civil cases may drag on for years as some of the victims are unaware
of the criminal proceedings
Also, they may turn to their lawyers only after they find out about the verdict.
This also means that the victims may end up having to give evidence twice - once
in the criminal hearing and again in the civil court.
As Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong pointed out yesterday, this leads to several
problems.
It prolongs closure for victims, requires evidence to be discussed twice,
increases legal costs and wastes the courts' resources.
There were 8,323 accidents last year and 7,499 the year before.
One possible solution which the courts are looking into now is to get all the
parties - the insurers, their lawyers and the prosecution - involved earlier, so
that the cases can be fast-tracked.
The courts are also working with organisations such as the Law Society, the
Traffic Police and the General Insurance Association to come up with an
acceptable quantum of damages for the different types of injury that arise from
traffic accidents.
The study is expected to be completed over the next four to six months.
More sentencing options for offenders
by Chong Chee Kin
STUDIES show that shoplifters steal because of emotional
stress rather than a real need to do so.
This distinction means they 'qualify' to be dealt with by the Community Court,
which was set up two years ago to hear cases involving young or mentally
deficient offenders.
It can mete out sentences such as probation, counselling and psychiatric
treatments instead of just fines and jail terms.
The new move to put all suspected shoplifters before the Community Court came
after studies show that shoplifters are not motivated so much by financial needs
as they are by stress.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said yesterday that foreign and local studies point
to one thing: Shop theft is often linked to underlying issues such as 'personal
and family stressors'.
A study by the Subordinate Courts yielded an interesting profile of the 355
shoplifters who appeared before the courts last year.
About one in three shoplifters suffered from family stress, another one in eight
had psychological problems while one in five suffered from emotional stress and
other social problems.
Only one in 10 said they stole because they were poor, hungry or desperate.
In 45 per cent of the cases, the stolen items cost less than $50. The loot of
choice? Food and drinks pilfered from supermarkets and 24-hour convenience
stores.
Lawyers said the move does not mean that the courts are going soft on the
offence, which forms a large proportion of the thefts committed by those aged
between seven and 19.
Those convicted may face a fine or, in the case of repeat offenders, a mandatory
jail term of up to seven years.
Lawyer Vijay Kumar said the Community Court will get to the root of the problem,
on why culprits turn to shop thefts, and help them solve it.
'In many cases, these offenders need help more than punishment to set them in
the right direction,' he said.
Counsellors like Mr Mohd Yusof Ismail, of voluntary organisation Ain Society,
welcomed the new focus on rehabilitation.
He said shoplifters could be acting out of 'frustration with family or
relationship problems, and they take things without really knowing why'.
 |
News/Articles 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Report: LAWASIA Fact-finding Mission to Pakistan
Malacca Bar: Conference on the Roadmap to Local Government Elections 
