Statute Details
- Title: Criminal Procedure Code (Production of Document or Other Thing) Regulations 2019
- Act Code: CPC2010-S56-2019
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary legislation (SL)
- Enacting Formula / Authorising Act: Made under section 428(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68)
- Commencement: 31 January 2019
- Legislation Number: SL 56/2019
- Current Version Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026 (per the legislation portal)
- Key Provisions: Sections 1–4
- Key Definitions: “authorised police officer”, “authorised person”, “customer information”, “recognised format”, “transcript”
- Related Legislation: Electronic Transactions Act (Cap. 88); Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68); “Timeline” (portal reference)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Criminal Procedure Code (Production of Document or Other Thing) Regulations 2019 (“the Regulations”) set out practical, procedural rules for how documents or “things” must be produced—or how access must be granted—when the Criminal Procedure Code (“the Code”) authorises the police or other authorised persons to compel production for criminal investigations and proceedings.
In plain terms, the Regulations answer a common operational question: when a written order is issued under section 20(1) or section 20(3) of the Code, what exactly must the recipient do, and in what form (physical copy, electronic copy, email, or electronic communication) can the material be delivered or accessed?
The Regulations are particularly important because they address electronic documents and access to information systems. They define what counts as a “recognised format” for electronic submissions, specify acceptable delivery channels (including email and computer/information systems), and clarify that copies may be retained for investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the Code.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation and commencement) confirms the name of the Regulations and that they came into operation on 31 January 2019. For practitioners, this matters when assessing whether a production order complied with the applicable procedural framework at the relevant time.
Section 2 (Definitions) is the backbone of the Regulations. It imports key concepts from the Code and the Electronic Transactions Act, and it creates additional definitions tailored to the production process.
Notably, the Regulations define:
- “authorised police officer” with a rank threshold that depends on the type of order. For most orders under section 20(1), the officer must be of or above the rank of sergeant. However, for orders relating to customer information by a financial institution, the officer must be of or above the rank of inspector. This rank distinction is a safeguard reflecting the sensitivity of customer information.
- “electronic communication” and “information system” by reference to the Electronic Transactions Act (Cap. 88), ensuring consistent interpretation of electronic delivery and system access concepts.
- “recognised format” for electronic documents. The definition includes specific file types (such as PDF, DOC, DOCX, JPEG/JPG, XLS, CSV, WMV, MPEG4) and also allows the authorised police officer or authorised person to specify other formats in a written order (for electronic documents or access to documents in electronic form). This provides flexibility while still anchoring submissions to identifiable, workable formats.
- “transcript” meaning a transcript of the entire contents of a document. This is relevant where the order requires a transcript rather than the original document itself.
Section 3 (Production or grant of access under section 20(1) of the Code) is the core operational provision for police and authorised persons. It applies where an authorised police officer or authorised person issues a written order requiring any person to produce a document or thing (or a copy), or to give access to a document or thing (or a copy), for purposes of an investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code.
Section 3 then sets out what the recipient may be required to do. In summary, the order may require the person to submit:
- A physical copy of the document or thing, or the transcript (if any); or
- An electronic copy in a recognised format on a medium specified in the order; or
- An email to a specified address, enclosing an electronic copy (in a recognised format) or setting out the transcript; or
- An electronic communication through a specified computer system or information system, enclosing an electronic copy or setting out the transcript.
Section 3 also expressly permits retention and copying. For investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings, the authorised officer or authorised person may retain or make copies of the document or thing, the physical copy, the electronic copy, and also the email or electronic communication used to deliver the material. This is significant for evidential management: it clarifies that the receiving authority can preserve the delivered material and the method of delivery as part of the case file.
Section 4 (Delivery under section 20(3) of the Code) addresses a different procedural pathway. It applies where the Public Prosecutor issues a written order requiring a Postal Authority or public postal licensee to deliver a document or thing. This is a targeted mechanism for obtaining documents held or transmitted through postal services.
Section 4(1) mirrors the delivery options in Section 3, but it is framed for the postal operator. The Public Prosecutor’s order may require the postal authority or licensee to submit the document or thing (or a physical copy or transcript, or an electronic copy in a recognised format on a specified medium) to a person stated in the order, or to deliver it via email or electronic communication through a specified system.
Section 4(2) then provides that a person stated in the Public Prosecutor’s written order may retain or make copies of the document or thing, the physical copy or transcript, the electronic copy or transcript, and also the email or electronic communication used for delivery. Practically, this ensures that the receiving party can preserve the evidence and the delivery record for subsequent criminal proceedings.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Regulations are concise and structured into four sections:
- Section 1 sets out the citation and commencement date.
- Section 2 provides definitions that govern interpretation of the Regulations, including electronic concepts and the “recognised format” concept.
- Section 3 governs production or grant of access under section 20(1) of the Code, including acceptable modes of submission (physical, electronic on medium, email, or electronic communication) and retention/copying powers.
- Section 4 governs delivery under section 20(3) of the Code, including delivery by postal authorities and retention/copying by the receiving person.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Regulations apply to the recipients of written orders issued under section 20(1) and section 20(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In practice, this includes individuals and organisations that hold documents or things relevant to a criminal investigation or proceeding, and who are required to produce them or grant access.
Section 3 primarily concerns orders issued by an authorised police officer or authorised person. Section 4 concerns orders issued by the Public Prosecutor to a Postal Authority or public postal licensee, and it also addresses the rights of the person stated in the order to retain and copy the delivered material.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Regulations are short, they are operationally critical for criminal procedure in Singapore because they translate the Code’s broad production powers into clear compliance steps. For practitioners, the value lies in reducing ambiguity about what “production” means when documents are electronic, stored remotely, or accessible through information systems.
The Regulations also provide evidential and procedural safeguards through their structured definitions. The rank distinction for “authorised police officer” in relation to customer information by financial institutions reflects heightened sensitivity and helps ensure that more intrusive orders are handled by more senior officers. Similarly, the “recognised format” definition supports technical interoperability and reduces disputes about whether an electronic submission was acceptable.
From a litigation and compliance perspective, the retention and copying provisions in Sections 3 and 4 matter. They confirm that the receiving authority (or the person stated in the postal delivery order) may retain and copy not only the underlying document or thing, but also the delivery artefacts—such as the email or electronic communication. This can be important when later challenging the integrity, authenticity, or chain of custody of electronic evidence.
Finally, the Regulations support efficient handling of digital evidence. By explicitly permitting submission via email or through specified computer/information systems, they align criminal procedure with modern document workflows, while still requiring that electronic copies be provided in identifiable “recognised formats” or formats specified in the written order.
Related Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68), particularly section 20 (production of documents or things; access; postal delivery mechanism) and section 428(1) (making power)
- Electronic Transactions Act (Cap. 88) (definitions of “electronic communication” and “information system”)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Criminal Procedure Code (Production of Document or Other Thing) Regulations 2019 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.