DEATH IN CUSTODY:- GOOD START BY THE IGP BUT MORE IS NEEDED

The Inspector General of Police need to be commended for his directives (and/or orders) that he gave to the state police chiefs during their meeting last month with regard to actions that will be taken with regard to death in police custody, or rather deaths that occur when the detainee is under “police supervision”. Directives, orders of the IGP and/or decisions of the police department are good, but this is not enough unless and until these matters are given the force of law by being enacted as a law and/or a subsidiary legislation.

Tan Sri Mohamed Bakri Omar, the IGP’s, orders, directives and/or decisions, as disclosed by the Federal CID Director Comm Musa Hassan, which was reported in the Star( 9/6/2004)  have been long overdue, and is now here but until these matters are given the force of law, it will just be nothing but an expression of temporary stance, position and/or policy.

A person who is arrested has a right to be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours after his arrest, and this is provided for in our Federal Constitution, as well as in our Criminal Procedure Code. Likewise, with regard to death under “police supervision”, there is a need to stipulate most clearly the time by which a post-mortem needs to be done, and the time by which an inquest must be held. The stipulation of time periods is essential to avoid unnecessary procrastination that will defeat the real intention of procedures and stated rights.

One of the concerns raised by families of death in custody cases was dissatisfaction about the manner and results of the post-mortem conducted by certain government doctors as is done currently. We thus need to also clearly provide the right to an immediate and prompt second post-mortem to be conducted by a second expert at the behest of the family of the victims. Family members of the victims and/or their lawyers should have the right to be informed of the death not later than 6 hours, and to immediate and full access of photographs of the victims as and when discovered, as taken before and during the post-mortem and also the full report of the post-mortem. Details of where the death happened, and also details of persons, including police personnel present in the lock-up and/or where the death happened, and/or involved in the arrest and/or investigation of the said victim from the point of arrest until his/her death should also be provided.

There must also be an immediate investigation into the death done by a special unit, not from the same police station and/or same police district. All police officers involved and/or who came into contact with the victim after his arrest must be identified and statements should be taken. Police officers involved should also be suspended temporarily, with clear instructions not to discuss with one another concerning the case pending the investigations by the said independent police investigation team, and this is important to prevent any possibility of conspiracy and/or collusion between persons involved in the said death in custody.

Deaths during police supervision may also involve temporary guests in police lock-ups, who may not be there the day after and hence the importance of prompt action by the said independent police investigation team.

The independent investigation team should also act promptly to seize all recordings (from the close circuit TVs that will be installed in all lock-ups), and all other physical evidence concerned with the case, whereby it is also essential that the family members/friends of the victims and/or their lawyers are also supplied immediately a copy of the list of physical evidence that has been collected and seized. This is important, given the fact that in one of the allegedly ‘shoot to kill’ incidence, the family members are alleging that there were no bullet holes in the shirt the victim was wearing.

What we have gotten so far is all that is in a report in the Star newspaper, which was based on a statement by one police officer, not even the IGP. Did the reporter get it right? Was all that was said reported? Was what was reported based on a written statement or an official directive? What we need is certainty, and nothing would be sufficient unless it is legislated and/or it is some rule/regulations made pursuant some power provided for in an Act of Parliament. We need more than statements of intents, and/or interpretations of such statements by a third party. After all, we all remember incidences of when members of the executive and/or others turning around later, and saying the newspaper report did not convey what was said.

With reference to the said Star report, all that it dealt with was with regard to deaths whilst in police supervision, and this is not enough. We need also to deal with serious injuries that occur to persons whilst in police supervision or custody, and also victims of police “shoot to kill” situations. There is a need for similar investigation procedures, and rights of families/friends and/or their lawyers to be put in place.

The Star Report also talks only about closed-circuit TV monitoring of the lock-ups but this is not enough because from history, lot of alleged violence, happens not in the lock-ups but in the investigation/interrogation rooms. What we need is closed-circuit TV monitoring in all the rooms and corridors in the police stations?  When it comes to these monitoring, maybe we may not need audio monitoring but at the very least there must be video recordings, whereby there must also be clear guidelines as to how these recordings are going to be kept safe, and for how long. Mere closed-circuit TV monitoring without recording capabilities is insufficient.

Tan Sri Mohamed Bakri Omar has taken the first initiative, and this must be appreciated but now it is time to ‘walk the talk’(as our new Prime Minister puts it), and make sure that all these words are codified and gazetted, thereby entrenching requirements and procedures that will definitely go towards restoring public confidence in our Malaysian police, and most definitely deterring repeat incidences of  deaths in police supervision, as possibly unnecessary ‘shoot to kill’ incidences.

Charles Hector

10 June 2004

Petaling Jaya