Newton Hearings: When Can They Be Requested After an Accused Pleads Guilty?

Last updated on September 27, 2024

When an accused person pleads guilty to a charge, this is usually done to avoid the trial process.

However, in certain situations, the accused person may wish to have a “mini” trial to resolve certain disputed facts, notwithstanding their intention to plead guilty to the charge(s) they face. This process is commonly referred to as a Newton hearing.

This article will cover the following topics:

What is a Newton hearing and When Can It Take Place?

Typically, when an accused person pleads guilty and is convicted of their charges, the case proceeds to sentencing, where the court decides on the appropriate sentence to be imposed after hearing and considering the defence’s mitigation plea and the prosecution’s submissions. The same process applies when the accused person claims trial, and if found guilty, is convicted of the charges after trial.

After the accused person’s conviction, the court may, in the course of the sentencing process, decide that it is necessary to have a hearing to resolve a difficult question of fact that is material to the court’s determination of the appropriate sentence. The court may then convene a Newton hearing to resolve the factual dispute.

It is important to note that Newton hearings are an exception rather than the norm, and should not be ordinarily convened unless that above condition (i.e. the need to resolve the difficult question of fact that is material to the court’s determination on sentence) is met.

Examples of questions of fact which may give rise to a need to convene a Newton hearing include:

Where there are conflicting medical reports on whether the accused person was suffering from a mental illness during the commission of the offence. This is an important fact, because it may reduce the accused person’s culpability. For example, in 2023, a woman pleaded guilty to five charges of abusing her domestic helper physically and verbally. At sentencing, the prosecution and defence disagreed over whether the woman was suffering from a mental condition that caused or contributed to her offences. The prosecution took the position that she was not, relying on two psychiatric reports from the Institute of Mental Health. On the other hand, the defence argued that the woman was suffering from major depressive disorder, relying on five medical reports and two memos, including one from her gynaecologist. The case was fixed for a Newton hearing to settle the disputed issue.
Where there is a dispute over the truth of a fact or statement relied upon by the accused person in their mitigation plea. For example, in 2024, a man pleaded guilty to 13 charges of corruption. He worked as an assistant shipyard manager at Keppel FELS shipyard but left the company after 13 years. However, even after his departure, he continued working with the yard manager at KEPPEL FELS in charge of engaging external contractors, to refer contractors to the shipyard for a fee. After pleading guilty, a Newton hearing was fixed to resolve two disputed factual issues – first, whether it was the man or his co-accused who initiated the scheme, and second, whether the man and his co-accused had agreed to split the ill-gotten gains equally. These were facts relied on by the defence, in seeking a more lenient sentence for the accused.
Where the accused person disputes their previous criminal record. For example, if the prosecution asks for a higher sentence on the basis that the accused person has been convicted of similar offences before, and the accused person does not acknowledge that they have such prior convictions, this may be a fact to be ascertained in a Newton hearing, and the prosecution will have to prove the existence of such a criminal record.

The concept of a Newton hearing is also encapsulated in a statutory form under section 228(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 228(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the court to hear any evidence to determine the truth of the matters raised before the court in the defence’s mitigation plea, which may materially affect the accused’s sentence.

It is important to note that a Newton hearing can be convened during the sentencing process regardless of whether the accused was convicted after a guilty plea, or after trial. However, a Newton hearing would be more common in cases where the accused person has pleaded guilty, instead of claiming trial. This is because if the accused person went through the entire trial process in the first place, the prosecution and defence would have had ample opportunity to address any disputed factual issues, reducing the chance of there being any unresolved or disputed question of facts at the sentencing stage.

Who Can Request for a Newton Hearing and How Can the Request be Made?

Either the prosecution or the defence (i.e. the accused or the accused’s lawyer) can request for a Newton hearing. The court will then decide whether to accede to the request and convene the Newton hearing. However, even if no request is made, the court may also, at its own discretion, decide to convene a Newton hearing.

There is no specific process to follow to make a request for a Newton hearing, and this request can be made at any time during the sentencing process when the dispute of fact arises, by raising the request to the judge overseeing the sentencing process. The judge then has the discretion to decide whether to convene a Newton hearing. The judge may take into consideration the following:

Whether the disputed fact is material to the sentencing of the accused person. In other words, even if there is a fact in dispute between the prosecution and defence, if it is not material to the sentencing of the accused person, the judge may decide that a Newton hearing is unnecessary. For example, in a drug trafficking case, it may be a point of dispute as to the accused person’s role (e.g. whether they were merely a conduit of the ringleader, or whether they directed or organised the operation). However, if the judge decides that it is the accused person’s conduct (e.g. the accused person’s act of giving instructions to a co-accused person, with the intention that the latter acts on them), and not their role per se, that is the primary consideration for sentencing, the judge may decide that a Newton hearing is unnecessary.
If the case advanced by the accused person is absurd and obviously untenable. If so, then the judge may decline to order a Newton hearing. For example, an accused person is convicted of drug trafficking after trial. However, during the sentencing stage, the accused person raises for the first time that they were actually just a courier, claiming that they were handed the bag by someone whom they had not met before, did not know the name of, and did not remember what they looked like. In the absence of any real evidence apart from the accused person’s new version of events, the judge may find that the case advanced is absurd and obviously untenable, and decline to order a Newton hearing.
If the issue may be resolved through other means, such as clarification, or additional evidence without the need for a new hearing. For example, if a court-appointed psychiatrist makes an assessment of the accused person’s psychiatric conditions, and the accused person disagrees with such a view, claiming that the psychiatrist had failed to consider several factors, the court may first seek clarification from the psychiatrist on the same. If it turns out that the psychiatrist had in fact considered the factors raised by the accused person in reaching their assessment, then the judge may decline to order a Newton hearing.

What Happens During a Newton Hearing?

A Newton hearing is conducted like a trial, and typically follows the following stages:

Examination-in-Chief: The prosecution and defence will present evidence to support their respective positions. This can include witness testimonies, expert reports and other relevant documents. Where the parties are relying on witness testimonies and/or expert reports, the witness and/or expert would typically have to be called to give their evidence-in-chief during the Newton hearing.

Cross-Examination and Re-Examination: The prosecution and defence can then test the veracity and reliability of the evidence presented by the opposing party. This is typically done by way of cross-examination of the opposing party’s witnesses and experts. After cross-examination, the prosecution and defence can re-examine their own witnesses and experts, to clarify any matters raised during the cross-examination.

Submissions: The prosecution and defence will then get a chance to make their respective submissions on the evidence. The party asserting a fact bears the burden of proving that particular fact. For example, if the defence claims that the accused person was suffering from a mental illness during the commission of the offence, then the defence bears the burden of proving this fact.

Decision: Lastly, the judge presiding over the Newton hearing will evaluate the evidence presented, and make findings on the disputed facts.

The evidence that the prosecution and defence can adduce during the Newton hearing is limited to evidence relating to the specific question of fact to be determined in the Newton hearing. Thus, evidence that goes towards the accused person’s conviction (which has already been determined by this point), cannot be adduced. This is in line with the limited purpose of a Newton hearing, which is to give the accused person a chance to adduce evidence on a material fact for the purposes of sentencing which they had no or insufficient opportunity to address earlier, and not to re-open issues which have already been settled at trial or introduce new evidence that contradicts the accused person’s conviction.

What Happens After a Newton Hearing?

After the Newton hearing, the court will then proceed to decide the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the accused person, and can attach such weight as it considers appropriate to the findings made in the Newton hearing.

For example, in the case of the ex-assistant manager at Keppel FELS shipyard who was convicted on charges of corruption, he was ultimately unsuccessful in the Newton hearing. At the end of the Newton hearing, the court ruled that the accused person had initiated the corrupt arrangement and that the amounts were split equally. The court then proceeded to sentence him to jail for 3 years and 7 months, and ordered him to pay a penalty of a sum equivalent to the amount he earned from the corrupt scheme.

It is important to bear in mind that the outcome and process of the Newton hearing can also have a bearing on the sentence imposed. As mentioned in our other article on mitigating factors in a criminal case, an early plea of guilt is a mitigating factor. According to the Sentencing Advisory Panel of Singapore’s sentencing guidelines (which are not binding on the court), if an accused person pleads guilty between the time of the first mention and 12 weeks after the prosecution informs the court that the case is ready for a plea to be taken, the guidelines recommend a maximum reduction in the accused’s sentence by 30%.

However, the guidelines also state that the maximum reduction in sentence should not apply where a Newton hearing is conducted, and where the accused person’s assertion is rejected by the court. The rationale is that a Newton hearing generally prolongs criminal proceedings further which can prevent victims from finding closure early and potentially waste the court’s resources.

—

In conclusion, Newton hearings can play a significant role in determining the outcome of an accused person’s sentence.

Newton hearings play an especially large role where the accused person wishes to plead guilty, but disagrees with certain facts which may be material to their sentencing. The accused person will then be able to dispute those facts and explain their side of the story during the Newton hearing. However, there are also consequences to requesting a Newton hearing, such as having an impact on the eventual sentence imposed.

Therefore, if you or your loved ones are involved in a criminal case and wish to find out if a Newton hearing can apply to your case, you should seek further guidance or advice from a criminal lawyer. The lawyer may also be able to represent you at the Newton hearing, if necessary.