PDRM SHENANIGANS: WHEN A SNATCHED HANDBAG BECOMES A DROPPED HANDBAG & AN INSPECTOR BEAT ME UP BECOMES HE TRIED TO BEAT ME

Commenting on the outcome of Aminulrasyid Amzah’s family’s civil case for damages over his death at the hands of the police, legal minds tell us that the burdens of proof in civil and criminal cases are different. They rightly point out that in criminal cases guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but in a civil case, the outcome depends of a balance of probabilities. Hence the different judgments in this criminal and civil case.

I’m wondering whether the outcome of the criminal case could have been different if the investigation was not carried out by the police as the suspect was a fellow policeman and there was a serious conflict of interest. Of course the police will retort that there was no conflict of interest and the investigation was done as thoroughly as would have been done if an opposition politician was being investigated.

Still, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Take the case of schools where a case of bullying blows up. Who investigates? The school is asked to investigate and send a report to the higher ups. Would the school head put the rope around his neck by admitting that discipline is very bad in the school, that the children are having control of the school, that teachers are scared of the pupils? Will he admit he has not been able to maintain strict discipline and jeopardise his perks and promotions?

I personally know of two criminal incidents that were so easily swept under the carpet by the police. In one incident in Sungai Petani in the 80’s, someone riding a motorcycle was pushed down by another motorcyclist and assaulted. He was injured and bleeding.

When his statement was being recorded by the I.O. (an inspector), the victim said the person who pushed his motorcycle down (while being ridden) “telah pukul saya”, and the I.O. wrote “telah cuba pukul saya” although the I.O. could see the injuries. Before signing, the victim got the I.O. to correct the statement. By cleverly adding one word “cuba” a criminal case was dismissed at the very initial stage of investigations.

In the second case a lady’s handbag was snatched in mid-day in a housing estate in Kulim about a dozen years ago. She can speak Malay but has a poor command of written Malay. She made a police report (those days it was needed to get a replacement I.C.). I got to see it sometime after that and asked her whether she had dropped her handbag or someone had snatched it.

She said someone on a motorcycle came from behind and snatched it while she was walking. The report said “bag tangan telah cicir” instead of “bag tangan telah diragut.” Again, another clever changing of just one word from “ragut” to “cicir” and there is no criminal case.

In other spheres of life, we have what is known as the doctrine of “conflict of interest”. Even in the courts this question comes up for example when a judge is asked to recuse himself for some reason or other so that his judgment is not seen as being tainted by conflict of interest or biased.

If the legal system believes in the doctrine of conflict of interest, then investigations of all criminal matters should not be carried out by the “family members” of the suspect or person reported against. Will the Bar Council do something about this?

An independent commission to investigate complaints / reports against the police was proposed many years as ago but the police was and is still deadly against its setting up. Why? If there is nothing to hide, why such strong objections from the police for the setting up of the independent Commission to investigate complaints against the police? - MAILBAG