There are two ways in which a public inquiry may be held over the circumstances leading to the death of Teoh Beng Hock.
As already suggested, the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry would go a long way in finding ways and means by which incidents like these are no more in future. Its terms and reference should be cast wide. It should look into things like the interrogation techniques used, the time and conditions under which a person may be interrogated.
Second, we should be looking the places where interrogations take place. There should be CCTV camera’s placed there and the footage of these recordings must be made available to those interrogated upon request.
I have done a case in which a restaurant owner was taken to a police station in Johor where he was beaten whilst tied up and then he was hung upside down from an iron bar, his pants removed and chemical liquid poured onto his private parts in the course of interrogations. The defendants denied it. We won the case. The prosecution did not appeal. A video would have helped indeed.
I am currently doing a case in which a young girl was allegedly raped in an interrogation room in a police station early one morning by a policeman in uniform. Again the defendant denies it. He claims it was consensual. A 17 year old girl. In a police station. At 5am. Consensual. A video would help.
And of course, we have the case of A.Kugan where a suspect was beaten to death in police custody. Gani Patail is not very sure of what to do. A video would help him.
These are just a few examples. There are other horror stories of hot water treatments in police stations, threats of death and so on. Well, that for another time.
Third, we should be looking at the rights of families where a death occurs. In Kugan’s case it is quite clear that but for the family’s barging into the mortuary and taking photographs and video’s of Kugan, no one would have realized the severity of the beatings which reflected as bruises and marks all over his body.
Likewise in Teoh’s case, a request to look at the body at the scene by lawyers was denied. We know the scene of the crime must be preserved for the best forensic results. But we can surely have rules for the family and their lawyers or experts to view the body from a distance so as to decide whether or not they want to have a second opinion.
Further, I feel it is very important for the law to demand that forensic personnel be compelled to speak to the family of the deceased at the scene after they have completed their investigations before removing the body. They should inform the family of their preliminary findings. This is never done. The families are left in a lurch as to what is the cause of death and they have no way to actually decide whether a second opinion is needed. It’s quite simple. How do you ask for a second opinion if you don’t know what the first one is?
Third, the law must make it a point to distinguish between ordinary deaths and deaths in custody. Where a death occurs in custody, then the police or the other investigating body becomes suspect. The law must give the family the option to have a second autopsy after they are appraised of the findings of the first. If they are satisfied with the initial report there is no need to go further, but if they are not, they have a right to a second opinion.
The other point is this. The family should be permitted to get any government or private pathologist to help them. It Teoh’s case, the family was asked to get a pathologist at the very last minute. This made it very difficult and we were only able to secure help from Thailand. And in Kugan’s case, we were given the runaround by the police up to a point that demonstrations needed to be held.and ultimately, we got Dr Prashant to help. Now, the AG has roped him into the prosecution team as well.
And, whilst on this topic, we should make sure that if the family opts for a government pathologist, then the state should bear the costs of the second autopsy. In Kugan’s case, we collected donations to foot the bill of RM3000.
There is also the question of formulating laws which protect the police or other officials in investigations of this nature. Ordinarily a lot of speculation and theories are channeled against them but we must understand that that is because of the problems I have spoken about above. Given the way in which the family and public are left in the dark about these very sensitive and important details, temperatures would indeed be expected to rise.
Quite apart from a Royal Commission of Inquiry, the law provides for inquests to be held in cases of sudden death. Take the Sujatha inquest as an example. Here a Magistrate will hear all witnesses in public before coming to recommendations as to the possible causes of death and also if anyone is to be held responsible. The terms of reference are narrower in that the Magistrate sits to merely ascertain the cause of death and proposed suspects. It does not go further in terms of what is discussed above, which a Royal Commission of Inquiry can look into.
I have advised Teoh’s family to call for both. A royal commission of Inquiry would be broader in its terms of its reference. It would look at the cause of death and more importantly the circumstances surrounding interrogations and the rights of suspects and their families. If a Royal Commission of Inquiry is not set up then we would ask for an inquest to be held.
July 19, 2009
GOBIND SINGH DEO
No comments:
Post a Comment