High Court wants police’s standing order on use of firearms

The High Court demanded the Deputy Public Prosecutor produce the Inspector-General's Standing Orders (IGSO) on the use of firearms when the case of shooting victim Dinesh Dharmasena came up for appeal hearing today.

Dinesh' family is appealing the decision of the Ampang coroner's court which in May this year ruled a verdict of "death by misadventure due to gunshot wounds".

The 26-year-old tow truck operator was shot following a shootout between police and a group of alleged gangsters in the wee hours of August 21, 2012. He succumbed to the gunshot wounds two days later.

The family is appealing against the decision of the coroner's court and is seeking from the Shah Alam High Court an order for a new inquest to be held.

The issue of the IGSO surfaced when counsel Eric Paulsen, who is representing the family, told the High Court today that two civilian witnesses had lodged police reports and given caution statements that Dinesh was unarmed during the incident.

"The magistrate did not take into account the statements of the two civilians, based on the fact that she made no mention of it in her verdict.

"So we need to know what's in the IGSO on the use of firearms, what is the standard operating procedure. We don't know the contents, for instance, if it says the SOP for a group suspected to be gangsters is to shoot to kill," Paulsen told the court.

He added that the IGSO was not produced despite repeated requests by the magistrate to the police and DPP during the inquest.

High Court judge Datuk Nurchaya Arshad today then ordered DPP Wan Zuraida Wan Nawan to produce the IGSO, to which the DPP said she would try and that 'she was not sure if she could provide it'.

The judge then retorted, "I'm not asking you to check. I want you to produce it to this court. Why can't you just say 'yes'?

"This is no longer just the counsel's request. The court wants to have a look at the IGSO  as well,"  the judge said.

Earlier during the proceedings, Paulsen told the court that a new inquest should be held as the two civilian witnesses, Y. Nelawarasn and Moses Kanesan  should have been compelled to come to court and to give evidence.

The two had not turned up to give evidence during the inquest despite being subpoenaed.

"It is clear from the magistrate's verdict that she did not take into account this piece of evidence, that Dinesh was unarmed when he was shot and that he was just an innocent bystander.

"What we have now is just one version of what happened, which is the police's version, and the magistrate did not make any finding on whether she took the caution statements of the two witnesses into account," Paulsen said.

DPP Wan Zuraida, however, said that they had done all they could to get the two witnesses to testify at the inquest, and had even issued arrest warrants against them for not turning up in court.

She added that they have not been able to effect the warrants as they are unable to locate them.

The DPP told the court it was their contention that the magistrate had taken into account all the information and evidence before her, adding that  the caution statements of the two civilian witnesses were submitted to the court and marked as exhibits.

Paulsen, meanwhile, also informed the court that investigating officer ASP Fon Thiam Seong had testified at the inquest that no fingerprints were taken from any of the weapons at the crime scene, including the alleged weapon used by the deceased as the fingerprints could not be lifted due to the nature of the surface of the 'parang' handle.

Paulsen added that this decision was made at the crime scene.

Another police witness, Constable S. Jeganeshwaran then testified that it was not standard operating procedure to lift fingerprints from weapons found at the scene as there were too many weapons and this was left to the discretion of the IO.

"The IO's testimony is quite inherently incredible; that he made the decision just by looking at the handle of the parang, and the testimony of Jeganeshwaran who said it is not SOP to lift fingerprints, all point to the possibility of a cover up," Paulsen told the High Court.

The judge set next Friday for decision.

- TMI