The Penal Code

[Sleepyman]

Got this from an email.

 

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/

 

Section 223 Penal Code

 

Escape from confinement negligently suffered by a public servant.

223. Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence, or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

 

Section 129 Penal Code

 

Public servant negligently suffering prisoner of State or war in his custody to escape.

129. Whoever, being a public servant, and having the custody of any prisoner of State or prisoner of war, negligently suffers such prisoner to escape from any place of confinement in which such prisoner is confined, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

Section 221 Penal Code

 

Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of a public servant bound by law to apprehend.

221. Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape, or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished —

 

(a) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with death;

 

(b) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years; or

 

© with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term less than 20 years.

 

Section 217 Penal Code

 

Public servant disobeying a direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.

217. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Sleepyman

[Kingcopa]

Ya right, it dun appply if u r high up there

[Sleepyman]

Heres what I think.

 

section 223 is referring to the ISD and Gurkhas at the detention centre. same for section 129, depending whether they view MSK as a normal convict or an enemy of state, which I asumme he is since they said he is a terrorist.

 

section 221 refers to police who refuses to arrest those who where in charge of the ISDs/Gurkhas, while section 217 refers to those higher ups who has the power to protect/save those who were guilty.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Sleepyman

[Picnic06-Biante15]

217. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

 

MSK had been charged and held under ISD Act. His escape does inplicate the one who escort MSK and failing to take proper procedures that let to the escape.

 

This section stated that being a public servant and knowing that an offence had been committed and that public servant doesn't take action immediately to make an arrest is guilty of this offence under section 217. (meaning that a theft committed in front of a police officer & the officer did not take action or a fireman saw a fire but walks away from the scene. this are only some examples of the section 217)

 

So your sentence "section 221 refers to police who refuses to arrest those who where in charge of the ISDs/Gurkhas" doesn't stand.

[Sleepyman]

Im not a lawyer, but I think (THINK only ah)

 

Lets say if Peter/Shumei/Bala/Miss Lala makes a police report against the ISDs/Gurkhas, whoever is supposed to be watching CCTV screens and monitoring fence's detector and whoever who is assigned to watch over security perimeter on top of watch towers being negilient using Section 223/219.

 

Then if the polis never/refuses to arrest them, Peter/Shumei/Bala/Miss Lala can make another report against the same polis who never carry out their job using Section 221.

 

Then if nothing is done and WKS or whoever saves/give chance/lenient and never order an arrest of them (Home Team for not carrying out their duties/ISD staff for being negilient), Peter/Shumei/Bala/Miss Lala can make another report using Section 217?

 

(Picnic06, not sure whether that answers your question? quoted "This section stated that being a public servant and knowing that an offence had been committed and that public servant doesn't take action immediately to make an arrest is guilty of this offence under section 217" Since he is aware that the Home Team and ISD staff are guilty of Section 223/219/221)

 

Man, this is so confusing.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Sleepyman

[Picnic06-Biante15]

This is law, u have to break up every sentences and every sentence is meaning by itself.....

 

Every sentence, there is a break either by comma or fullstop.....

 

It's say, offence committed in view of that public servant and no action taken....... , never say supervisor, unless that supervisor is also at scene at that time.....

 

law is very difficult..... to argue, very loooooooooong............

[Chickenfarm]

Wah u got ink man

 

Simi raw by raw...wa kua liao

[Chickenfarm]

Simi pen*s code? Pen*s still must have code? Pen*s jiu pen*s lah...simi si code?

 

With my standard, I think qi kuay (feed chicken) easier

[Picnic06-Biante15]

Your kuay are those in cages or running loose one.....

 

running loose one needs pen*s code also.....

[So_nice]

go print a "T@K BOLEH T@H@N" t-shirt and go outside ist@n@ la..hehe more effect.

[Bentwy]

MSK was never tried in court.

legally not a prisoner of the State.

 

i think these sections do not apply.

[Sleepyman]

Even so I think they sure got covered by some Immunity Act one, so lppl haha

[Sleepyman]

Maybe this covers it?

 

ISA CAP 143 (8)

 

All ISD detainees are subjected to above and registered in accordance with below:

 

ISA CAP 143 (79)

 

Therefore all detainees are in Lawful Custody provided under ISA CAP 143, thus Penal Code CAP 224 (129) & (223) are lawfully applicable.

 

If they were not registered and lawfully authorized by CAP 143 ISA to be detained, then those who held these detainees had committed kidnapping or abduction Penal Code CAP 224 (359) & (362) which is punishable by death / caning / imprisonment depending on what they were found to be intending to achieve by kidnapping or abducting these people unlawfully.

 

Anyway I think they will siam one haha

[Tony76]

True. Such cases are covered under ISA. They are not referred as prisoners but as detainees. Detained under ISA or literally, without trial. There are such cases spanning 30 to 40yrs. Never released.

 

There should be a legitimate court hearing for such detainees. My opinion.