Threats, Inducement & Promise
Cases on Threats Inducement & Promise and Oppression
In Yeo See How v PP  2 SLR 390, the accused person claimed that:
- he was feeling cold;
- he was not given medicine for his gastric pain; and
- he was hungry.
It was held that there was no necessity for the interrogators to remove all discomfort. On the contrary, some discomfort had to be expected. The issue was whether the discomfort was to such a great extent that it caused the making of an involuntary statement.
In PP v Tan Boon Tat  SLR 375, the Court of Appeal ruled that even when an accused person was tired, hungry, and thirsty and under great stress, this was not sufficient to amount to oppression unless he was in such a state that he had no will to resist making the statement.
In Ong Seng Hwee v PP  4 SLR 181, the accused person claimed that he was given little to eat and was not feeling well and under medication, at the time the statement was recorded from him.
It was held that the relevant inquiry was whether the circumstances prevailing at the time of the recording of the statement were such that the accused person’s free will was sapped and he could not resist making the statement. It was held that the evidence suggested that the appellant was perfectly alert and lucid, albeit tired. The circumstances hardly came close to establishing the requisite weakening of the appellant’s free will that would render the statement involuntary.
How we can help
At I.R.B Law LLP we have experienced Criminal Litigation Lawyers who are passionate about justice and fairness. Our lawyers will be able to guide you through Singapore’s Criminal Justice System and each and every stage of the proceedings. We firmly believe that everyone should be entitled to a second chance and be allowed the opportunity to turn over a new leaf and live life anew. Should you be in a position where you may need our assistance, please do not hesitate and contact us at Hello@irblaw.com.sg or call us at 6298 2537 so that we can advise you on your matter.