Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

3-2026

Abstract

Under s 359(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, the court can order an offender to compensate the victim with a sum which the victim would have been able to recover in a civil claim in tort against the offender. The courts have used this useful power extensively, though problems remain. One such problem is seen in Ong Eng Siew, where the court declined to make a compensation order. Given the purpose of the compensation system, the court was not correct to hold – in effect – that the purpose of s 359(1) is to benefit only impecunious victims, and that the Prosecution bears the burden of proving that the victim is impecunious. Further, the compensation order should have covered not only medical expenses paid by the victim in cash, but also those paid using Central Provident Fund savings and MediShield Life insurance payouts. This comment also calls for further study of the compensation regime in practice and possible procedural reforms to make it easier for victims tohave prosecutors present evidence relevant to the issue of compensation.

Keywords

criminal compensation, victim compensation, victims' rights, Singapore, criminal procedure

Discipline

Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure | Public Law and Legal Theory

Research Areas

Dispute Resolution; Asian and Comparative Legal Systems; Public Law

Publication

Singapore Journal of Legal Studies

Volume

March 2026 Online

First Page

2151

Last Page

2170

ISSN

0218-2173

Identifier

10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2025.102476

Publisher

National University of Singapore

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2025.102476

Download

Share

COinS