Friday, 29 April 2016
Apex court to decide if IGP must reunite mum with daughter after 8yrs
Eight months have also passed since she turned to the courts to compel inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar to look for her daughter as she and her ex-husband K Pathmanathan, who now uses the name Mohd Ridhwan Abdullah were embroiled in a custody battle over their three children.
Tomorrow, the Federal Court will deliver its verdict on whether the top cop has to abide by the order of the High Court.
On Sept 12, 2014, the Ipoh High Court issued a mandamus order compelling Khalid to find and arrest Ridhwan and return their youngest daughter to Indira.
Three months later, the Court of Appeal in a majority 2-1 decision overturned the High Court order as Justices Abdul Aziz Abd Rahman and Ahmadi Asnawi allowed the police chief's appeal while Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat dissented.
Following this, Indira, who is represented by Aston Paiva and DAP lawmaker M Kulasegaran, took her case to the Federal Court.
Paiva had argued that Ridhwan only possesses a custody order from the Syariah Court, and not from the civil courts.
Furthermore, he said Ridhwan had failed to appear in court for the past six or seven years.
However, senior federal counsel Suzana Atan told the apex court that the matter is a private dispute and should not involve the police and government.
The judiciary's number two, Court of Appeal president Justice Md Raus Sharif, is leading the five-member bench.
The verdict, however, might only be delivered by four judges since Justice Abdull Hamid Embong retired from the Federal Court early this year.
Meanwhile, Indira is also challenging the unilateral conversion of her three children by her former husband and the matter is fixed for leave to appeal on May 19.
Eight questions of law have been posed for this purpose and although the questions are not known, they are expected to be on the issues of:
- Malaysia's position in international convention like the United Nations convention on the rights of a child, of which Malaysia is a signatory
- Jurisdiction between the civil and syariah courts and
- Whether children born out of a marriage from civil law must comply with the Administration of the Religion of Islam enactment of the respective states.
IGP: Sub judice to discuss Dharmendran, EAIC should've rejected complaint
"(EAIC chairperson) Yaacob Md Sam knows very well that the case against four police officers accused in the murder of the victim will resume trial from May 25 to 27 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court when they will be called to enter their defence.
"Since the case is still ongoing, it should not be discussed outside of the court as it can cause prejudice and is sub judice to the case," said the IGP in a statement.
He argued that by law, the body should have rejected the initial complaint over the Dharmendran case as it involved an ongoing court case, as noted in Section 26 (4) (f) of the Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission Act 2009.
"Indeed at the early stage, the complaints committee should be aware that all complaints as well as its findings related to proceedings ongoing in any courts of law, including appeals, must be reported to the commission along with the reasoning behind the findings with the recommendation to reject the complaint," said the IGP, citing the section.
He also lamented that the EAIC report made it seem like the police has failed to take action against those deemed responsible for Dharmendran's death while in custody.
'Last ditch' interrogation method
Khalid argued that from an early stage, a thorough, detailed, and transparent investigation was undertaken concerning the custodial death.
He said based on the investigation, the attorney-general had ordered the prosecution of the four police officers on Jun 2013 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder, which may lead to the death penalty if they are found to be guilty.
"Clearly, the police never protected any of its officers or men who are involved in any criminal act," stressed Khalid.
The EAIC today released its report on the outcome of the public hearing into the death of Dharmendran, who died while in police custody, in response to a complaint over the matter.
The commission had recommended further charges for other cops whom they deemed had made false statements to cover up the circumstances behind Dharmendran's death.
It also debunked explanations by police personnel that the victim's ears were stapled after his death, noting the coroner's report that it was done ante-mortem and may have been part of a "last-ditch" interrogation method that led to Dharmendran's death.
Dharmendran was detained on May 11, 2013, and died 10 days later while in police custody at the Kuala Lumpur Police Contingent Headquarters (IPKKL).
Four police officers from the IPKKL were arrested and charged with causing his death.
On Dec 12, 2014, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur freed the four police personnel from the charge after concluding there was no prima facie case against them.
However, the Court of Appeal ordered the four police officers to enter their defence in the case.
Cops' explanations for detainee's stapled ears debunked
Citing the public hearings which were conducted following Dharmendran’s death, EAIC chairperson Yaacob Md Sam said two police officers had given their theories how the staples were found in Dharmendran’s ears.
One had theorised that the staples were accidentally clipped while the deceased’s body was being wrapped before it was transported to the hospital, while another officer’s theory was that the ears were stapled when the body was at the mortuary.
“(The theories were) totally illogical, unreasonable explanations,” said Yaacob in a press conference after presenting the report on the outcome of the public hearings today.
Yaacob said evidence from the pathologist had confirmed that there was blood after the staples were removed.
“This shows that his ears were stapled when he was alive. It rules out that the staples were made after his death or at the mortuary.”
The pathologist had also confirmed that the ears were stapled not more than three days prior to the post-mortem.
Hypovolemic shock Yaacob added that if it was indeed true that Dharmendran's ears were stapled, there would have been plastic fragments on them.
“I'm not saying that the staples caused his death, but they were injuries suffered by him.
“The combination of those injuries, including the 52 bruises caused by blunt force object, had caused acute massive loss of blood into the tissues, causing hypovolemic shock.”
The EAIC chief also rued the lack of blood sampling for DNA analysis.
Two staplers from the D9 unit’s office at the Kuala Lumpur contingent police headquarters were seized but the lack of blood samples ruled out DNA comparison analysis to ascertain the identity of “Male 1”.
“If blood samples were taken from any of the personnel who had access to Dharmendan, they could have been compared with the blood on the staples. This would have given better evidence,” said Yaacob.
Dharmendran was detained on May 11, 2013, and died 10 days later while in police custody at the IPKKL.
Four police officers from the IPKKL were arrested and charged with causing the death.
On Dec 12, 2014, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur freed the four police personnel from the charge after concluding that there was no prima facie case against them.
The Court of Appeal, however, has ordered the four police officers to enter their defence in the case.
Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/339536#ixzz476JNmTml
EAIC wants charges on cops who lied to cover up detainee’s death
EAIC chairperson Yaacob Md Sam said this while presenting the report on the outcome of the public hearing into the death of Dharmendran, who died while in police custody on May 21, 2013.
The commission found that the last six entries in the D9 IPK Kuala Lumpur lock-up diary, written by the two lock-up sentries, to be false.
Some of the entries were written in an unusual manner by one of the sentries as they were written only two or three days after the death of the deceased, as opposed to while he was on duty.
The commission also found that entries 3150 to 3153 were jointly made up by senior officers of the police, comprising the deputy head of the criminal investigation of the Intelligence and Operations Department, the officer in-charge of D9 IPK Kuala Lumpur, the deputy officer in-charge of D9 IPK Kuala Lumpur and an officer of the D9 IPK Kuala Lumpur.
The commission also found that the above-mentioned police personnel had also instructed the two lock-up sentries to write false entries into the lock-up diary on the night Dharmendran died.
The commission also affirmed that Dharmendran’s death was a result of the use of physical force by the police.
EAIC said the use of physical force that had caused injuries and his subsequent death had violated the Inspector-General of Police’s Standing Order (IGSO) which prohibits the use of physical force against detainees during interrogations.
Apart from the 52 bruises found on the deceased, the post-mortem conducted had also confirmed that the two staples found embedded on the deceased’s ears were stapled while he was alive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)