On Jan 13, a 63-year-old man died in a police lock-up at the Taiping district police headquarters (IPD) in Perak. The deceased was an accused person who had already been charged in court in April 2021, and as such he should rightly have been returned to his place of detention at the prison complex, possibly Taiping prison, and not placed in any police lock-up.
Bukit Aman Integrity and Standards Compliance Department director Azri Ahmad said: “The accused had been placed in the Taiping IPD lock-up after the first mention of the case on Jan 11 while awaiting the next mention tomorrow.”
The Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) group states that after his court date on Jan 11, he should have immediately been returned to prison, and brought back to court again on Jan 15.
It must be noted that the Taiping Prison, where he was most likely detained after being charged in April 2021 is nearby. He cannot simply be placed in a police lock-up at this stage.
Those in police lock-ups are only arrested suspects, remanded for investigation purposes only, and as such, the authorities must explain why this accused person awaiting his trial to end was even in a police lock-up when he died.
After an accused is charged in court, he is further detained if his application for bail was denied, or because he simply could not afford to furnish the required bail.
In Malaysia, there are too many un-convicted people waiting for their trial to end, who are in prison. In 2015, for example, there were a total of 51,602 persons in Malaysian prisons, and about 25.8 percent (13,000) of them were remand pre-trial prisoners.
Great injustice happens when these detainees are later found not guilty. At present, Malaysia does compensate the innocent for their often years of lost liberties and freedoms.
Madpet reiterates the call for compensation for those wrongfully detained, who have been found not guilty or innocent.
CCTV and CMU in lock-ups
In a parliamentary reply on Dec 16, 2021, Home Minister Hamzah Zainudin said that all police lock-ups will be monitored by CCTV latest by the end of 2021, and as such, it is hoped that the CCTV recordings will assist in the inquiry of this mid- January 2022 death in custody case.
Madpet hopes that there will be no more cases where the police come up with excuses of non-functioning or non-existent CCTVs, ‘fake’ CCTVs or even excuses that the CCTVs do not record.
To reduce death in police custody, the minister also said that steps have included a more stringent standard operating procedure(SOP), whereby there will also be increased monitoring at night and also increased personnel responsible for monitoring lock-ups.
Madpet urges for a disclosure of this SOP, so that the detainees and others can also make sure the police comply with them.
The minister also spoke about the set-up of the Custodial Medical Unit (CMU), which will do medical examinations on detainees before they are placed in police lock-ups.
Madpet is pleased that this will certainly reduce and/or eliminate deaths in police custody in Malaysia.
Death in custody
On Dec 7, 2021, Hamzah said that because of the number of complaints about deaths in custody, the decision was made to set up this new Death in Custody Investigations Unit which would be under the federal police’s Integrity and Standards Compliance Department. This unit will be headed by a police superintendent and investigate all deaths in police custody that occur from Jan 1 onwards.
Apparently, this new unit has sprung to action, and two police officers were among four individuals arrested to assist in the investigation into the death of this detainee.
All four have been remanded at the Taiping Magistrates’ Court for seven days until Jan 20 to assist in the investigation.
Madpet is open in allowing the opportunity for this new Death in Custody Investigations Unit to show us that the police can investigate such cases independently, even when the perpetrators may likely be police officers, and the scene of the crime is a police facility.
Lack of prosecution
Even before this new special unit, the police was duty-bound to investigate such deaths in custody, but unfortunately, the lack of prosecution of the police suspects have given rise to a public perception that the police cannot really be expected to independently investigate and bring to justice police officers responsible for the death. There is a need for a non-police independent investigation.
In 2018, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) found that police personnel had beaten Syed Mohd Azlan Syed Mohamed Nur with criminal intent sufficient to make it a crime of murder. The EAIC also found that the police had tampered with evidence – even causing a rubber mat and/or carpet possibly stained with blood to vanish.
It is for this reason that many have called for an independent body, not the police, when the police themselves may be the perpetrator, and/or are directly or indirectly involved in the crime.
No more 'sudden death'
A report by Bernama said that the victim "suffered from sudden death while in custody".
Sudden death, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary means, "unexpected death that is instantaneous or occurs within minutes from any cause other than violence". What is the cause of the death is for the coroner to determine after an open inquest.
For death in custody cases, violence cannot be ruled out prematurely – as the likelihood of violence by police officers and/or others of causing the death instantaneously or even much later after the act/s of violence is there. The failure to provide speedy healthcare and medication also makes someone criminally liable for the death.
“A magistrate holding an inquiry shall inquire when, where, how and after what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of the death."
It is the coroner that determines whether it is "sudden death" or otherwise, not the police and certainly not the media.
Call for an inquest
In a parliamentary reply on Jan 16, 2021, the home minister said for the period from January 2015 until September 2021, there were 79 deaths in police custody. The minister said that only 20 inquests were done, 17 cases are with the public prosecutor, 12 still being investigated and the police have classified 30 cases as no further action.
Madpet calls for an inquest for all remaining 59 death in custody cases in that period, and for all death in custody cases, and these inquests must be done speedily, preferably before the body of the deceased, which is the key evidence, is disposed of. Cremation can destroy much-needed evidence.
An inquiry of death is not an investigation with the object of finding sufficient evidence to prosecute anyone. An inquest determines when, where, how and after what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of the death.
As such, the most important question is whether anyone may be criminally responsible for the death or not.
Remove doubt
As to the determination of who exactly is the criminal suspect, that is really not the responsibility of the coroner, but the police and the prosecutors.
An independent coroner’s finding after an open inquest can remove doubt of police criminal responsibility on the victim of death in police custody.
Madpet calls for a speedy inquest in this case and reiterates the call for inquests for all death in police custody cases.
Madpet also calls on the home minister, government and judiciary to practice transparency and accountability, and make public results of inquests, coroner’s reasons for not holding inquests, investigation and/or prosecution of death in custody cases through their websites and other means, without being always forced to answer because of some parliamentary question. - Mkini
CHARLES HECTOR is a spokesperson for the group Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet).
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.