Rigby J:

The accused in this case was convicted of indecent assault under s. 354 of the Penal Code.

The facts, as accepted by the Magistrate, were that the accused accosted a woman in or near a durian plantation and attempted to embrace her.

The Magistrate sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment. Under s. 12(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate further directed that upon the expiration of his sentence the accused be subjected to police supervision for a period of three months.

The accused, a Malay aged 27, had three previous convictions over a period of, I understand, the last five years for offences as varied as housebreaking and theft (in respect of which, I further understand, he was bound over), defacing an identity card and house trespass.

In my view, neither the facts of this case nor the past record of the accused justified the order for police supervision.

Police supervision should not be imposed by way of an additional punishment. Its sole object and only justification, as I understand it, is to ensure that in the interests of public security the Police are in a position to exercise some measure of control over the movements and activities of persons of known bad character - such as burglars, pickpockets and common thieves - who habitually and consistently lead a life of criminal dishonesty.

There are many Judges, Magistrates and Prison Officers of long experience who consider the imposition of police supervision and the consequent difficulties and restraint it puts upon the prisoner after his release - including, unfortunately, in many cases the undoubted difficulty a prisoner subject to police supervision may well encounter in his genuine efforts to secure and, of more importance, to maintain regular employment - does more harm than good.

In my view, the power to impose police supervision is a measure that should be sparingly resorted to by Magistrates and then only in the most appropriate cases.

The order for police supervision in this case is accordingly set aside.

I observe from the record in this case that after the Magistrate had convicted the accused the Prosecuting Officer informed the Court that the accused had three previous convictions and the record states that the accused admitted those previous convictions. No particulars of the previous convictions are, however, attached to the record of the case. Either a copy of the particulars of the previous convictions should be produced by the prosecution and - after they have been specifically put to and admitted or denied, as the case may be, by the accused - attached to the Magistrate's record, or the learned Magistrate should himself take down upon his record of the case the full particulars of the previous convictions. Such details are obviously necessary in the event of the case being required, as in this instance, by the High Court.

Order accordingly.