SINGAPORE — Preventing would-be offenders from “gam(ing) the decision-making process”, avoiding the slippery slope of acceding to public clamour for more specific guidelines and sending out the message that “the surest way for a person to avoid criminal sanctions is to avoid violating our criminal laws in the first place”.

These were among the reasons Attorney-General (AG) Steven Chong gave yesterday for not publishing guidelines on prosecutorial decisions, following public debate over the issue.

In Parliament last year, Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament (MP) Pritam Singh had asked the Law Minister whether it would be better for the AG to explain the reasons for his discretion in some cases. MP Sylvia Lim also raised “public concerns about the equitability of the legal system” over the case of Dr Woffles Wu, who was charged under the Road Traffic Act instead of the Penal Code over an employee taking the rap for speeding offences.

Addressing over 100 criminal lawyers, prosecutors and judges at the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore Annual Lecture yesterday, Mr Chong said the position today “strikes the right balance between competing interests”, but added that this would be reviewed as society and the justice system evolves.

Currently, the AG is not under any legal obligation to publish prosecutorial guidelines. It should remain so, Mr Chong said, because “with a sufficient body of reasons, would-be offenders would be able to game the decision-making process”. This is especially risky where syndicated and premeditated crime is concerned, he said.

Also, publishing such guidelines could lead to “public clamour for even more refinements”, resulting in uncertainty that would be “entirely unhelpful for prosecutors”, he said.

Thirdly, “would-be criminals would be less concerned with what the law is than with when it is likely to be enforced”.

The AG also disagreed that more transparency in how prosecutorial discretion is exercised would enable more effective judicial review of unlawful decisions by the prosecution.

Such applicants, he said, are likely to be guilty accused persons who have been convicted and chosen to “delay or avoid the consequences of his prosecution by bringing an application for judicial review.

“It is their right, but I don’t think I should assist them in discharging their burden,” he said.