Statute Details
- Title: Criminal Procedure Code (Audiovisual Recording) Regulations 2018
- Act Code: CPC2010-S571-2018
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Enacting Act / Power: Made in exercise of powers conferred by section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68)
- Commencement: 17 September 2018
- Current Version: Current version as at 27 March 2026 (per provided extract)
- Key Amendments (from timeline): Amended by S 1047/2020 (effective 2 January 2021); amended by S 284/2025 (effective 28 April 2025)
- Core Subject Matter: Offences and procedural controls relating to audiovisual recordings of specified statements in criminal proceedings
- Key Provisions (from extract): Regulations 2–9; in particular:
- Regulation 2: Definitions (including “copy” and “relevant officer”)
- Regulation 3: Specifies which statements and audiovisual recordings are covered
- Regulation 4: Prescribes other places where recordings may be viewed
- Regulation 5: Creates offences relating to copying, recording the making of statements, and unauthorised use/distribution
- Regulation 6: Creates offences for possessing a recording device during viewing
- Regulation 7: Exemptions from certain offences
- Regulation 8: Declares which offences are “arrestable offences”
- Regulation 9: Sets conditions for authorisation by a relevant officer
- Schedules: First Schedule (relevant officers); Second Schedule (prescribed places for viewing)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Criminal Procedure Code (Audiovisual Recording) Regulations 2018 (“AV Recording Regulations”) are subsidiary legislation made under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68). Their central purpose is to regulate how certain audiovisual recordings—specifically, audiovisual recordings of statements made during criminal investigations and proceedings—may be copied, recorded further, used, distributed, and viewed.
In plain language, the Regulations create a controlled environment around “applicable” audiovisual recordings. They do this by (i) defining which recordings are covered, (ii) limiting where and how they may be viewed, and (iii) criminalising unauthorised copying, unauthorised recording of the making of statements, and unauthorised use or distribution. They also address a practical risk: that persons who are allowed to view a recording might attempt to capture it using their own devices.
For practitioners, the Regulations matter because they sit alongside the Criminal Procedure Code’s provisions on how audiovisual recordings are produced and disclosed in criminal proceedings. The AV Recording Regulations provide the enforcement mechanism and the compliance framework—particularly through offences and authorisation rules—so that the integrity and confidentiality of audiovisual evidence are protected.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Scope: what recordings and statements are “applicable” (Regulation 3)
The Regulations apply to three categories. First, they cover every statement made by a person examined under section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code and recorded in audiovisual form. Second, they cover every statement made by an accused in answer to a notice read to the accused under section 23(1), again recorded in audiovisual form. Third, they cover every audiovisual recording that is mentioned in those two categories.
This is important because the offences in Regulation 5 and the device-control offence in Regulation 6 only apply to audiovisual recordings that fall within this defined scope. A practitioner should therefore begin by identifying whether the audiovisual material in question is indeed an “audiovisual recording mentioned in regulation 3”.
2. Definitions: “copy” and “relevant officer” (Regulation 2)
The Regulations define “copy” broadly. It includes copies of the whole or part of the audiovisual recording, copies of the aggregate of visual images and sounds embodied in the recording, and even a photograph or screenshot of any visual image embodied in the recording. It also includes copies of copies and copies of screenshots/photographs. However, it excludes drawings and transcripts (including transcripts of the statement or of the sounds made during the process).
For evidence-handling and compliance, this breadth is significant. A screenshot or photograph is treated as a “copy”, meaning that even seemingly minor capture methods can trigger criminal liability if done without authorisation.
The Regulations also define “relevant officer” by reference to who recorded the statement and who is authorised to deal with the recording. Where the statement is recorded during a criminal investigation by an officer of a public office listed in the First Schedule, the “relevant officer” includes the specified public officer, the Public Prosecutor, and authorised Deputy Public Prosecutors. Where the statement is recorded during an investigation other than by such officers, the relevant officer is the Public Prosecutor or an authorised Deputy Public Prosecutor. The definition also extends to Registrars of the Supreme Court, Family Justice Courts, and State Courts where the statement or recording is produced before, or is subject to, certain court orders under section 235(7) of the Code.
3. Viewing locations: prescribed places (Regulation 4)
Regulation 4 prescribes “other places” where an applicable audiovisual recording may be viewed for the purposes of specified Criminal Procedure Code provisions (including provisions relating to viewing by an accused, disclosure steps, and court-related processes). These “other prescribed places” are set out in the Second Schedule.
Practically, this means that viewing is not open-ended. If a party is permitted to view, it must be done in the manner and at the locations contemplated by the Code and these Regulations. Any attempt to view outside prescribed arrangements may raise compliance and admissibility issues, and may also intersect with the device-possession offence in Regulation 6.
4. Offences relating to applicable statements and audiovisual recordings (Regulation 5)
Regulation 5 is the core enforcement provision. It creates multiple offences with similar mental elements: the person must act without authorisation, and must know or have reason to believe that the recording/statement is one covered by Regulation 3 and that the act is not authorised.
(a) Unauthorised copying (Regulation 5(1))
A person commits an offence if they, without authorisation of a relevant officer, make a copy of an applicable audiovisual recording, knowing (or having reason to believe) that the recording is within Regulation 3 and that the making of the copy is not authorised.
(b) Unauthorised recording of the making of statements (Regulation 5(2))
A person commits an offence if they, without authorisation, make any audio, visual, or audiovisual recording of the making of a statement covered by Regulation 3( a ) or ( b ). Again, the person must know or have reason to believe that the statement and the recording are within scope and that the recording is not authorised.
(c) Clarification: drawings and transcripts are not “recordings” of the making (Regulation 5(3))
To avoid doubt, Regulation 5(3) clarifies that making a drawing of any part of the process, or making a transcript of the statement (or of the process or the sounds made during the process), does not constitute making an audio/visual/audiovisual recording of the making of the statement. This is a useful carve-out for note-taking and transcription practices, though it does not permit unauthorised copying of the audiovisual recording itself.
(d) Unauthorised use or distribution of the original or a copy (Regulation 5(4))
A person commits an offence if they, without authorisation, uses or distributes the original or a copy of an applicable audiovisual recording, knowing (or having reason to believe) that the recording is within scope and that the use/distribution is not authorised.
(e) Exceptions (Regulation 5(5))
Regulation 5(5) provides that Regulation 5(4) does not apply to (i) use of the original or copy for viewing pursuant to specified Code provisions, and (ii) disclosure by the prosecution to an accused or the accused’s advocate for purposes of criminal proceedings, whether voluntary or pursuant to law/rule of law or court order.
This exception is crucial for practitioners. It confirms that lawful disclosure and viewing rights under the Code are not criminalised, even though the general rule prohibits unauthorised use/distribution.
5. Device-control offence during viewing (Regulation 6)
Regulation 6 creates an offence where a person, without authorisation of a relevant officer, possesses a recording device during the viewing of an applicable audiovisual recording under specified Code provisions. The person must know or have reason to believe that the audiovisual recording is one within Regulation 3 and that possession is not authorised.
Although the extract truncates the remainder of Regulation 6, the structure indicates a targeted prohibition on capturing recordings while viewing. For defence counsel, prosecutors, and court staff, this means that compliance is not limited to “copying after viewing”; it extends to what devices are brought into the viewing environment.
6. Exemptions, arrestable offences, and authorisation conditions (Regulations 7–9)
Regulation 7 provides exemptions from certain offences in Regulation 5(1), (2) and (4) and Regulation 6. While the extract does not reproduce the text of Regulation 7, its presence signals that the Regulations are not absolute: there are circumstances where conduct that would otherwise be an offence is permitted (for example, where authorisation is granted or where specific procedural roles require it).
Regulation 8 declares that every offence under Regulation 5(1), (2) or (4) or Regulation 6 is an “arrestable offence”. This has immediate procedural consequences: it affects arrest powers and how enforcement may be carried out.
Regulation 9 sets conditions for authorisation by a relevant officer. For legal practitioners, this is a key compliance point: authorisation is not merely a matter of permission in principle; it must satisfy the conditions prescribed by the Regulations.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Regulations are structured as follows:
- Part/Regulation 1: Citation and commencement (17 September 2018)
- Regulation 2: Definitions, including “copy” and “relevant officer”
- Regulation 3: Identifies which statements and audiovisual recordings are “applicable”
- Regulation 4: Prescribes other places where applicable recordings may be viewed for specified Code purposes
- Regulation 5: Creates offences relating to copying, recording the making of statements, and unauthorised use/distribution, with clarifications and exceptions
- Regulation 6: Creates an offence for possessing a recording device during authorised viewing
- Regulation 7: Exemptions from specified offences
- Regulation 8: Designates which offences are arrestable
- Regulation 9: Conditions for authorisation by relevant officers
- First Schedule: Lists “relevant officers” by reference to public offices
- Second Schedule: Lists prescribed places for viewing
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Regulations apply to “a person” who engages in conduct relating to applicable audiovisual recordings—this includes accused persons, advocates, investigators, court users, and any other individuals who may be present during viewing or handling of such recordings. The offences are not limited to professionals; they are framed broadly and depend on knowledge/reason to believe and lack of authorisation.
However, the Regulations’ practical operation is closely tied to criminal procedure roles. The concept of “relevant officer” determines who can authorise conduct. In addition, the viewing-related offences in Regulations 4 and 6 depend on whether the viewing is pursuant to specified provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, while the legal wording is broad, the factual triggers are procedural and evidence-handling contexts.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
First, the Regulations protect the integrity and confidentiality of audiovisual evidence. By criminalising unauthorised copying (including screenshots and photographs) and unauthorised recording of the making of statements, the law reduces the risk of evidence being leaked, manipulated, or disseminated outside controlled channels.
Second, the device-possession offence during viewing is a practical safeguard. In modern practice, viewing often occurs in environments where individuals may have smartphones or other devices. Regulation 6 ensures that the viewing process cannot be undermined by capturing the recording indirectly.
Third, the Regulations have real enforcement implications because certain offences are “arrestable offences” (Regulation 8). For practitioners, this means that breaches may lead to immediate police involvement and arrest, not merely administrative consequences. Defence counsel and prosecutors should therefore treat compliance as a serious procedural requirement—particularly when preparing for disclosure, arranging viewing sessions, or advising clients and witnesses about what is permitted.
Finally, the exceptions in Regulation 5(5) confirm that lawful disclosure and viewing rights under the Criminal Procedure Code are preserved. This balance—strict control against unauthorised dissemination, but protection for procedural disclosure—helps ensure that the Regulations support, rather than obstruct, fair criminal proceedings.
Related Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68) (including sections 22, 23(1) and 23(6)(a), 162(2), 166(2), 214(2), 218(2), 225B(3), and 235(7)(b))
- Criminal Procedure Code (Audiovisual Recording) Regulations 2018 amendments: S 1047/2020; S 284/2025
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Criminal Procedure Code (Audiovisual Recording) Regulations 2018 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.