How eating a cigarette landed a man in trouble with the law: Explainer
Source: TODAY
Article Date: 09 Aug 2024
There is nothing legally wrong with eating a cigarette in and of itself, but eating a cigarette in order to destroy evidence of an offence is unlawful.
A man made headlines recently for the unusual act of eating a cigarette.
Ramamoorthy Reddiar Jayaraman was convicted and fined S$1,000 after he pleaded guilty to obstructing an authorised officer from exercising their power under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act 1992.
In mitigation, the 53-year-old told the judge: “To be honest, Sir, eating a cigarette… I didn’t know (it) is an offence in Singapore.”
The judge pithily replied: “You want to eat all number of cigarettes, that’s entirely up to you, the court has no issue with that.
“You are here for the offence of obstructing the exercise of an NEA (National Environment Agency) officer’s power.”
The judge’s dry wit succinctly frames the real issue here: It is not just the nature of one’s actions that matters, but also the context in which those actions take place.
There is nothing legally wrong with eating a cigarette in and of itself, but eating a cigarette in order to destroy evidence of an offence is unlawful.
In this case, Ramamoorthy ate the cigarette because he was trying to keep it away from NEA enforcement officers who had spotted a teenager smoking in a prohibited place.
His actions had prevented the officers from taking possession of evidence linked to an offence.
Trying to prevent law enforcement officers from carrying out their lawful functions is known generally as “obstruction of justice”.
LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL ACTS
Generally, in Singapore, it is lawful to do anything that is not unlawful: It means that you can do anything that is not specifically prohibited by law.
You do not need specific laws to tell you that, for example, it is lawful to kiss someone.
On the other hand, it is unlawful to kiss someone without their consent and there is a specific law, outrage of modesty under Section 354 of the Penal Code 1871, that says so.
This brings us back to the earlier point: Context matters.
In general, there is no law against eating cigarettes, or against eating any kind of inedible substance. Indeed, there are no laws against making bad decisions in general.
It is only when those bad decisions have serious consequences for society that the law tends to intervene.
For example, there is no law against overconsuming junk food. However, there are laws against consumption of drugs, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, because drug consumption and addiction have serious negative consequences for society as a whole.
Ramamoorthy’s conviction is not about the eating of the cigarette, it is about the harm he has caused to society by interfering with the enforcement of its laws.
If he had thrown the cigarette away, or disposed of it in some less dramatic fashion, he would still have been guilty.
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
Ramamoorthy was lucky to be charged under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act 1992. This is a relatively less serious form of obstruction of justice, carrying lower penalties.
In general, obstruction of justice is dealt with by a variety of offences in the Penal Code.
For example, Ramamoorthy reportedly ate the cigarette to help the unidentified teenager who was smoking it avoid conviction.
This could be seen as causing evidence of an offence to disappear, which itself is an offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code.
The main law relating to obstruction of justice is Section 204A of the Penal Code.
This covers a broad range of conduct that goes beyond just destroying evidence, including any act that has a “tendency to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice”.
For example, in July 2022, 22 men were charged with obstructing the course of justice for sending messages in certain WhatsApp groups that contained information relating to ongoing law enforcement operations.
They did so knowing that other members in those groups would likely take steps to avoid detection by those law enforcement operations.
Another, more serious, example of obstruction of justice is tampering with evidence.
One notable series of cases in 2018 involved three Central Narcotic Bureau officers, who switched out a suspect’s urine sample to ensure that it would test negative.
One officer pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months’ jail. The other two claimed trial and were eventually convicted and sentenced to 24 and 22 months’ jail respectively.
SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE FAIRNESS
The justice system tries to be, as far as possible, fair to all parties. This includes an accused person.
Accused persons are not expected or required to admit to their guilt.
The presumption of innocence is fundamental to our justice system, meaning that unless and until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be treated as if he were innocent.
That is why there is also a right of silence in Singapore law — the accused need not say anything that could incriminate him.
However, while the accused may lawfully remain silent, he is not entitled to actively interfere or mislead the legal proceedings.
An accused person may not, for example, lie to investigators since that would constitute giving false evidence. Likewise, evidence should not be tampered with or destroyed.
If indeed Ramamoorthy’s objective really was to be merciful to the teenager and to help him avoid a criminal record, this was not the right way to go about it.
The criminal justice system has safeguards in place to ensure fairness to the accused, especially a young offender.
For example, the teenager may have been given a warning by the prosecution instead of being charged. Alternatively, even if charged, the teenager may have simply been given probation.
The point is that interfering with the justice system simply opens one up to criminal charges, and may often make things worse rather than better.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Alexander Woon is the provost’s chair at the Singapore University of Social Sciences’ School of Law and also practises law at RHTLaw Asia. He was formerly a deputy public prosecutor at the Attorney-General's Chambers.
Copyright 2024 MediaCorp Pte Ltd | All Rights Reserved
555