Mr Andy Z. J. Teo1, Dr Kenneth Koh2, A/P Stella Tan1, Dr Xin Xiang Lim1, Dr Stephen Phang2
1National University of Singapore, Singapore, 2Institute of Mental Health, Singapore
Biography:
Senior Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at the Institute of Mental Health and an Adjunct Assistant Professor with the Yong Loo Lin and Lee Kong Chian Schools of Medicine.
Abstract:
The law in Singapore has evolved to provide alternative sentencing options to imprisonment term for offenders with psychiatric conditions. In 2011, Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was amended with the introduction of a new rehabilitative regime known as the Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO), providing judges with greater flexibility in sentencing offenders who qualify for the MTO and demonstrate rehabilitative potential. The MTO requires the offender to undergo treatment for a specific period, of up to 36 months, with the aim of addressing the root cause of their criminal behaviour and reducing recidivism. In Singapore courts, this is a two-prong approach: first, a court-appointed psychiatrist must report that the offender’s psychiatric condition is treatable, a contributing factor to the offence and the offender is suitable for treatment. Second, the judge would weigh in the psychiatrist’s report with other material factors for sentencing such as the circumstances leading to the offence before deciding if the accused should be sentenced to MTO. The current body of inter-disciplinary research involving mental health and the law, especially in the local setting is relatively limited. This paper seeks to illuminate the relationship between offenders’ psychiatric conditions (there is a wide range of such conditions), the circumstances surrounding their offences, and the courts’ reasonings to sentencing the offender to MTO (or not). The authors utilised all judgements regarding MTO on Lawnet (Singapore’s legal database for judgements) from 2011 to 2024 (13 years span, since MTO was introduced).