“OUT OF ABUNDANCE OF ATTENTION”

In his written response on Wednesday, Mr Shanmugam said most of the documents shared with the AGC were in the context of the scheduling of executions of prisoners awaiting capital punishment, also known as PACP.

“It has been the practice of the SPS to keep the AGC informed of developments involving these PACPs and to seek legal advice as to whether there are relevant ongoing proceedings or matters which may give rise to such proceedings, which would require a stay of sentence capitals,” he said.

“This approach was taken out of an abundance of caution. The officers who disclosed the documents believed in good faith that they could be shared with the AGC in order to seek legal advice on the scheduling and to ensure that PACP’s rights were not infringed in terms of further action taken on their sentences.”

Mr Shanmugam also noted that the Court of Appeal ruled that the consent of the relevant detainees or a court order should have been obtained for disclosure.

He also pointed out that the Court of Appeal said that three of the 13 prisoners were entitled to only nominal damages of $10 each for copyright infringement and that there was no basis for the prisoners’ claims for additional damages.

There was also no breach of trust due to the SPS officers opening or reading the documents as they were permitted to do so under prison regulations.

“Furthermore, the Court of Appeal also accepted in an earlier decision, which also dealt with the disclosure of inmate correspondence, that although there was surveillance by the AGC when it received correspondence from SPS, there was no attempt to seek no advantage in court. procedures,” he said.

“Our agencies are doing everything they can to fulfill their responsibilities under the law. Occasionally, outages may occur.

“Here the damages were such that the Court ordered damages of $10 each to three of the plaintiffs. SPS has put measures in place to prevent a recurrence.”

Regarding the provision of solicitor-client privilege for prisoners, Mr Shanmugam said that under the regulations, letters to or from a prisoner’s legal counsel cannot be copied or withheld.

“However, this privilege cannot be at the expense of ensuring the security and good order of prisons, which is the primary responsibility of the SPS. This matter will be carefully considered,” he added.