Posts Tagged ‘Police’

Two ways of presenting lock up death

February 2nd, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


I guess readers would have known about the latest lock-up death, which happened in Negeri Sembilan.

Let’s see how Malaysiakini reported it:

The family of a man, said to have committed suicide while in police custody, have refused to collect his remains from the morgue and are seeking another post-mortem.

Sawmill worker P Babu, 28, was found dead in the Jempol police lock up at about 4am after he surrendered himself in connection with a robbery case.

When contacted, Jempol MIC Youth chief M Palani said the first post-mortem report classified the death as suicide.

The deceased had apparently used his shirt to hang himself.

“But this is unofficial. We were told that we would get the black and white report within seven days,” he added.

‘Strong willed person’

Palani said the family have rejected the findings because “Babu was a strong willed person and would not have this decision (to commit suicide)”.

“We are also questioning the fact that he hung himself using his shirt. Shouldn’t he be wearing a police issued t-shirt (for detainees)?” he asked.

Yesterday, Palani filed a police report calling for a thorough investigation into Babu’s death.

Both MIC and PKR politicians have cried foul over the incident and offered to help the family secure a second post-term.

This is The Star version:

Police have ruled out foul play in the death of an ex-convict who was found strangled in his cell at the Jempol police station on Monday morning.

State police chief SAC I Datuk Osman Salleh said findings by a forensic pathologist from the Tuanku Ja’afar Hospital in Seremban also revealed there were no other injuries on 28-year-old P. Babu.

“The only marks visible on the deceased’s body were on his neck and these were consistent with someone who had committed suicide by hanging,” he told The Star.

Osman said police have also viewed the closed-circuit television (CCTV) recordings at the lock-up and had spoken to his cellmates in the course of their investigation.

“The CCTV recordings too didn’t reveal anything,” he said.

Babu, a sawmill worker with several convictions previously, had surrendered to police on Jan 28 to assist in investigations into several robberies near here.

Osman said in the early hours of Jan 26, Babu and three accomplices aged in their late 20s and early 30s had allegedly robbed a couple at a rubber estate near here.

“The couple called the police and a patrol car was immediately despatched to the scene.

“When my men reached the area, they managed to detain one of the suspects while the others managed to escape on their bikes,” he said, adding that police also recovered some stolen jewellery from the man.

Babu, who was released from prison three months ago after serving a six-year jail term for robbery, and the two others surrendered to the police two days later.

It is understood that Babu had also served time for drug-related and cheating offences previously.

When met at the family home at Rumah Rakyat near here, Babu’s uncle M. Mahadevan, 35, said the family would ask for an independent post-mortem.

“We are not going to accept the post-mortem done by the hospital authorities as we don’t believe Babu committed suicide,” said the district council employee.

Mahadevan said although his nephew died at about 3am, he was only allowed to see the body after the post-mortem was conducted several hours later.

He also asked why there were no CCTVs in the toilet as this could have helped determine how Babu died. [can have CCTV in toilet ka???]

“The police have asked us to collect his remains for burial but I will only do so after the independent post-mortem has been done,” he added.

One version did not mention about his previous convictions, nor statements from the police. The other had mentioned both those things. Both versions mentioned about his occupation and voluntary surrender.

What were the efforts of the family, government departments, NGOs etc. in order to rehabilitate this ex-convict? Why did he go back to crime even though he had a job (low salary? no thrill? greed?) ?

Looks like need to wait for the independent post-mortem to identify actual cause of death.

Another death in custody

February 1st, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


More action for Human Rights Party coming soon as a remanded person died in police lock-up. However, in this case, MIC and PKR are already in action.

A sawmill worker was found dead in the Jempol police lock-up in Negeri Sembilan, prompting politicians from both sides of the divide to again cry foul over frequent deaths of police detainees.

P Babu, 28, was found dead in the Jempol police lock-up at about 4am. His body was brought to the Seri Jempol hospital two hours later. Family members are waiting for an autopsy report.

Babu, an orphan who was raised by his uncle, has been under remand since Jan 24 after he surrendered himself to the police over a robbery case.

Negeri Sembilan executive council member VS Mogan said initial police reports suggests Babu hanged himself to death and expressed the state government’s concern.

Mogan, who visited family members at the hospital earlier, said police are still in the dark over how this could have happened.

“I believe there will be a public outcry following the mysterious circumstances of Babu’s death and this is certainly not good for the police.

“Senior police officers in the state should also explain how this could happen,” he said.

The mysterious circumstances of Babu’s death has also prompted MIC Jempol Youth chief M Palani to lodge a police report.

“It is rather unfortunate that another death has happened in the lock-up and I think the public wants answers,” he said.

‘Why always Indians?’

On the opposition front, PKR Negeri Sembilan deputy chief M Ravi has condemned the police over the incident and questioned why most victims of custodial deaths were of Indian descent.

“I hope the police Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan would investigate how custodial deaths happen and why it is more prevalent among the Indian suspects. He has to explain,” he said.

Should the family members be dissatisfied with the autopsy report, Ravi said he would assist them in seeking an independent autopsy to determine the cause of death.

“We are closely monitoring the situation. I am puzzled with Babu’s death, as he had surrendered himself to the police, and yet this happens,” he said, adding PKR may hold a demonstration over the matter.

He added family members had indicated that Babu showed no signs of depression prior to his surrender.

This is very weird…

December 17th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


This is bordering on impossible, but being Bolehland…..

The guy was arrested on 6 December and given remand for 9 days. The very next day, a police officer said the report against him was false. So, he should be released right? Wrong. He was still kept for 9 days and on top of that, was beaten! This is serious allegation indeed.

While we can praise the police for catching criminals, these kinds of black marks only damages their reputation. Kerana nila setitik, rosak susu sebelanga. I think the nila is more than just one titik (drop).

Maybe police officers need to undergo annual psychiatric evaluation to ensure they are of sound mind. Remember that one out of four Malaysian have some sort of mental health problem (That’s according to national institute of mental health).

A man detained on suspicion of sexual harassment was tortured and beaten despite the Police being aware that a false report was lodged against him.

S Isaikumar,28, lodged a report at the Seremban police headquarters. He was accompanied by his lawyer N Surendran.

Surendran said that Isaikumar (right) was arrested on Dec 6, 2009 and remanded for nine days based on a police report lodged against him for sexual harassment.

The following day, on Dec 7, Isaikumar was told by the investigating police officer that the charges made against him were based on a false report.

Nevertheless, the police only released Isaikumar (right) on Dec 14, during which time Isaikumar alleged he was assaulted and subject to humiliation by the police.

“Isaikumar was slapped, abused and beaten with PVC pipes by a group of police officers,” said Surendran.

He claimed that at one stage a female police officer sat on Isaikumar’s chest and inserted a shoe she was wearing into his mouth.

The police, he alleged, also took photos of Isaikumar in the nude, including photos of his genitals.

Surendran further claimed that his client was denied medical treatment despite running a fever.

Though the lockup where he was detained held seven prisoners, Isaikumar alleged they were given only three packets of food to be shared among them.

‘He was innocent’

Chief investigating officer, Inspector Ahmad Sobri Amir Salim, cleared Isaikumar of any wrongdoing in a letter on Dec 14, on the day of his release.

“Despite his innocence, Isaikumar went through an unnecessary and unwarranted nine days of remand, coupled with abuse by police officers,” said Surendran.

The lawyer said the case should be investigated by Bukit Aman because he felt the Seremban police would not conduct a fair inquiry.

Surendran called on inspector-general of police Musa Hassan to ‘clean up his own house’ as there have been many cases and reports of police brutality.

Meanwhile Parti Sosialis Malaysia secretary, S Arutchelvam, demanded Bukit Aman form a special team to investigate this latest report of police brutality.

Arutchelvam said that if there was no action within two weeks, PSM would take up the case with Bukit Aman.

He said the case clearly showed a “lack of police professionalism” where police were “victimising” an innocent citizen.

Isaikumar, Surendran and Arutchelvam were among a group who attempted to enter the IPK premises but were denied entry.

There was also an attempt to meet with the deputy chief police officer of Negri Sembilan, but an officer denied them permission.

Instead, the group was advised to lodge a report at the nearby Seremban town police station.

Among the political leaders present were Senawang state assemblyperson P Gunasekaran, Temiang assemblyperson Ng Chin Tsai, Negeri Sembilan PKR deputy chairman S Haridass and state PKR Youth deputy chief Norazizi Aziz.

Info on police investigation, rights and bail

December 17th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Bookmark this category
Useful information on police investigation procedure and rights of citizens. Received via email.

 

Police Investigation
 
     
WHEN DOES INVESTIGATION BEGIN?

Investigation begins the moment you are arrested and before a charge is brought against you, in order to determine if there is any or enough evidence which can sustain the charge.

WILL YOU BE ARRESTED OR DETAINED DURING INVESTIGATION?

Any person who has been accused or connected with or suspected of committing an offence may be arrested by police. Where a seizable offence e.g. murder, robbery or theft is suspected to have been committed, a police officer may arrest the offender with or without warrant or order from the Public Prosecutor in the course of investigation.

After your arrest, you cannot be kept indefinitely in police custody pending police investigation. You must be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest or where the police need more time for their investigation, they must produce you before a Magistrate to request permission to detain you further for a term not exceeding 15 days in a whole.

Where further detention is unnecessary, you may be released on bail to ensure your appearance in Court at an appointed date. Bail, however, is not available in certain cases e.g. if you are charged with murder or drugs trafficking.

The police may also detain you up to 60 days on suspicion upon Ministerial satisfaction that you may be subject fit and proper to be detained under the authority of the Minister for up to usually 2 years each time. This is known as preventive detention. The laws that allow for prevention detention are the Internal Security Act, 1960, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, 1969.

ARE YOU OBLIGED TO ANSWER POLICE QUESTIONS?

Where you have not be been arrested but only called by the police for questioning, you are bound to state the truth and answer all questions put to you by the police investigating officers except those which have a tendency to expose you to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture (right from self-incrimination). Before recording your statement the police officer will have to explain to you your right from self-incrimination.

WHAT SEARCH POWERS DO THE POLICE HAVE?

Persons having the power to arrest may search any place entered by the person sought to be arrested and may effect an entrance by force if refused entry. An arrested person may be searched and any articles found which are reasonably believed to be evidence of the crime may be detained until his release. Any offensive weapon found on the arrested person may be seized. A person in lawful custody who is unable to give a reasonable account of himself due to incapacity may be searched to ascertain his name and address.

FOR HOW LONG CAN A PERSON REMAIN IN POLICE CUSTODY?

A police officer who has taken a person into police custody must be brought before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. Police detention of the arrested person must not exceed 24 hours (excluding the time taken for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate Court) unless a remand order had earlier been obtained. Any violence used by a police officer to a person in his custody is a punishable offence. Any person who escapes from lawful custody may be pursued and arrested by the person from whose custody he fled.

 
Bail    

Basically there are two types of bail –

(i) police bail; and

(ii) court bail.

Police bail is granted when investigation cannot be completed. Instead of detaining the suspect longer, police bail is granted to ensure that the suspect will appear at the police station and report to the investigation officer at the appointed time. Usually, police bail takes the form of a bond by the surety without securities being furnished.

On the other hand, court bail means the release of a person from custody of the detaining authorities upon security being given for his appearance in Court on an appointed date.

Whether court bail will be granted would depend on the nature of the offence. For purpose of bail, offences are classified under (i) bailable (ii) non-bailable and (iii) unbailable offences. A bailable offence means bail has to be offered as of right. The court has no choice but to offer bail. Non-bailable means the court has a discretion to grant bail and when an offence is described as unbailable, no bail will be offered. Examples of bailable offences are voluntarily causing hurt, cheating and defamation. Examples of non-bailable offences are rape, theft, infanticide and causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. For penal code offences, a complete list of bailable and non-bailable offences is found at column 5 of the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Bail will not be granted in unbailable offences. These are offences punishable with death or life imprisonment for instance drugs trafficking, murder, or kidnapping punishable under the Kidnapping Act.

However, there are exceptions and bail may be offered for any person under the age of 16 years or any woman or any sick or infirmed person accused of such of offence.

Conditions may be imposed in granting bail (only in respect of non-bailable offence) such as requiring the accused person to surrender his passport. Failure to comply with the condition imposed may result in an accused person being remanded until trial.

The purpose of bail is not to punish the accused person but to merely secure his attendance in Court on a given date. Thus the Court will normally take into account the following factors in deciding whether bail ought to be granted: –

• The nature of the offence with which he is charged;
• The apparent possibility of conviction;
• The likely sentence;
• His family lives and relationship within the community in which he lives;
• His previous criminal record (if any);

• His reputation, employment status and monetary conditions

A bail once granted may however be revoked if there is clear evidence that the accused person is interfering with the course of justice for example the destruction of evidence or tampering of witnesses.

Regards,

Sanjeev
National Chairman,
Police Affairs & Rehabilitation Bureau
Unity & Community Development Committee
Malaysian Indian Congress.

__._,_.__

Kuhan mother waiting for 9 months

September 26th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


I wonder how many of us still remember the Kuhan case. Today the mother went to the palace to submit memorandum along with MP Kapar Manikavasagam and MP Puchong Gobind Singh.  She had been waiting for the criminals to be bought to court, but no news. I remember the AG office asking the police to do further investigation. Not sure what happened after that. Also, the recent case involving samples taken from Kuhan’s body being taken away from police also hit the papers. The court ruled that the police must not destroy or tamper with the samples, I think. Below is the news from MK:

Following massive public outcry accusing the police of foul play, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail reclassified the case as murder and a day later 11 officers from the Taipan police station were moved and put on desk duty.

Moreover, in April the police had seized Kugan’s blood and tissue samples, documents and even the second pathologist handwritten notes from the University Malaya Medical Centre’s Pathology Department. 

Currently, the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) is probing Dr. Karim Tajuddin’s professional conduct in relation to the cause of Kugan’s death in the first post-mortem report.

“Until now nobody has been arrested and nobody has been charged… on top of that the police have seized the samples,” lamented Surendran

Anyway, the attempt to pass the memorandum failed. Only 20 people or so turned up, mainly family members, politicians, HRP’s Uthaya and HINDRAF supporters. The police did not allow all of them to enter into palace compound to hand in the memo to a palace aide, but allowed only 3 people. The whole group wanted to go in, and so the police refused entry. More reports from MK:

Some 20 people, including the deceased family members and supporters led by members of parliament Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong) and S Manikavasagam (PKR-Kapar) left the palace at 11.30am dejected.

“The family members alone consist of three people… what about their lawyer and the MPs accompanying the family? We too want to meet the palace officials when the petition is submitted,” said Gobind.

Also present were supporters of the banned Hindu Right Action Force (Hindraf) and newly-formed Human Right Party (HRP) members lead by its secretary-general P Uthayakumar.

Kugan’s mother N Indra, his sister S Garthiyaini and brothers Iswara and Shargunan were also present.

Distraught by the police’ refusal to let all of them to submit their petition, Indra broke in tears as her lawyer N Surendran and the parliamentarians tried to negotiate with the police.

She could hardly say much apart from demanding that justice be served and punishment meted out against her son’s murderers.

Gobind said he could not understand the “logic” of the police’s refusal to allow more people to meet the palace officials.

“Firstly, it was not our intention to go into the palace, it was our intention to hand over the petition to the palace officials outside,” said Gobind.

“We were there as a peaceful group, it was not our intention to create a ruckus… but the police did not seem to understand this,” he said.

He also demanded that attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail to come forward and explain why nothing has been done in the past eight months.

“He (Abdul Gani) is duty-bound to explain to the public… I also ask why isn’t the prime minister showing similar concern in this case as he did in the case of political aide Teoh Being Hock, who was found dead at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in Shah Alam,” quizzed Gobind.

“The entire country cannot understand why the silence on the part of the AG, who had already classified it (Kugan’s case) as a murder,” asked Gobind.

Uthayakumar added that Kugan’s death was just the “tip of the iceberg” on deaths in police custody.

“The behaviour of the Brickfields OCPD Asst Comm Wan Abdul Bari Wan Abdul Khalid is not exemplary to the prime minister’s call for One Malaysia,” said Uthayakumar.

“While the government is saying the country will be more liberal by reviewing the Internal Security Act and Police Act, the implementation at ground level is not consistence,” he said.

When approached by reporters Abdul Bari described the group as being unreasonable because they had initially agreed to a delegation comprising three people.

“However, despite the palace allowing up to five people to meet them, the whole group insisted on going in,” Abdul Bari said.

…  The number of police officers, including Light Strike Force personnel, exceeded the number of the supporters gathered at the palace gates this morning.

“This again reflects the draconian manner in which the police are prepared to act in cases where they are alleged to be the suspects,” blasted Gobind.

Gobind said further that the police should not have impeded their programme as their petition was against the lackadaisical attitude in the enforcement authorities.

“The police ought not to have interfered today because the complaint we are raising is squarely against them so it is difficult to understand how they can be independent in this circumstance,” he said.

“The home minister should explain why a group of Malaysians in small numbers cannot handover a memorandum to their king… everyday you see tourists and foreigners taking photographs at the gates of the palace but the rakyat have to face a barricade of police officers to give a letter to king,” he lamented.

“We make very clear we will not stop here and we will return soon… we sincerely hope that we will be allowed to hand over the petition next time without any interference,” said Gobind, adding that he would be raising the matter in Parliament when it resume sitting on Oct 19.