"...Al-Amin, Samuel Raj and four others were originally arrested on July 27 under sections 365 and 385 of the Penal Code - which relates to kidnapping and abducting - and were remanded for four days without the knowledge of their families said their lawyer Francis Pereira..
"(The police extended their remand because) the individuals were not informed of their rights [...] to inform a relative or a friend of their whereabouts as well as to consult with lawyers of their choice.
"Hence their appearance in court on July 28 (was) unrepresented by legal counsel," said Pereira (right) who was present at the Suhakam headquarters too.
At a following hearing on July 31, the men were represented by Pereira after both their families became aware of their remand through a newspaper report two days after their first court appearance.
Both the court appearances were at the Petaling Jaya magistrate’s court.
"The remand extension was then challenged by counsel and the magistrate then denied the extension of the remand and ordered that all six individuals be released," said Pereira.
Abused while in custody
However, when the remand order expired four days later the police refused to release them despite the court order and instead re-arrested the six under section 397 of the Penal Code which relates to gang robbery.
According to the lawyer, the re-arrest was based on police suspicion of their connection with a gang robbery allegedly involving a group of Indian men.
"All the charges are completely unrelated," Pereira insisted.
The fate of the two men did not improve with their third trip to court on Aug 1, this time at Klang magistrate’s court.
The court released them, but the police immediately re-arrested them under the Emergency Ordinance which allows for a 60-day remand period....Malaysiakini, 5/8/2008, Two still remanded despite court ruling
(a) communicate or attempt to communicate, with a relative or friend to inform of his whereabouts; and
(b) communicate or attempt to communicate and consult with a legal practitioner of his choice..." and this means that it is MANDATORY - and the police have no choice in the matter.
And, if the person arrested wished to communicate with his family/friend or lawyer - the police must allow him to do so.... as soon as possible --- and"shall provide reasonable facilities for the communication and consultation under this section and all such facilities provided shall be free of charge". Yes, free of charge - the police cannot ask for money. The police must provide the phone.
And if the person arrested wants to get in touch with his/her lawyer.... then 'The police officer shall defer any questioning or recording of any statement from the person arrested for a reasonable time until.." the person arrested can meet and consult with his/her lawyer.
That is why what they did to the 2 were wrong and in breach of the law - which MUST be followed.
It was very wrong for the police to re-arrest for some other reason later on... and the courts did not allow this.
And it was even more wrong for the police to then use a Detention Without Trial law to try and detain persons for longer period...
We should all condemn the action/s of the police and call for immediate and unconditional release of the 2 persons now being detained unjustly under the Emergency Ordinance.
Will be good if human rights groups and political personalities also do immediately condemn the actions of the police and call for the immediate and unconditional release of the 2 - even though they may not be very 'big' or 'popular' persons.
For the information of all, section 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kanun Acara Jenayah) which today deals with some of the rights of persons arrested is as follows:-
28A. Rights of person arrested.
(1) A person arrested without a warrant shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest by the police officer making the arrest.
(2) A police officer shall, before commencing any form of questioning or recording of any statement from the person arrested, inform the person that he may-
(a) communicate or attempt to communicate, with a relative or friend to inform of his whereabouts; and
(b) communicate or attempt to communicate and consult with a legal practitioner of his choice.
(3) Where the person arrested wishes to communicate or attempt to communicate with the persons referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), the police officer shall, as soon as may be, allow the arrested person to do so.
(4) Where the person arrested has requested for a legal practitioner to be consulted, the police officer shall allow a reasonable time-
(a)for the legal practitioner to be present to meet the person arrested at his place of detention; and
(b)for the consultation to take place.
(5) The consultation under subsection (4) shall be within the sight of a police officer and in circumstances, in so far as practicable, where their communication will not be overheard.
(6) The police officer shall defer any questioning or recording of any statement from the person arrested for a reasonable time until the communication or attempted communication under paragraph 2(b) or the consultation under subsection (4) has been made.
(7) The police officer shall provide reasonable facilities for the communication and consultation under this section and all such facilities provided shall be free of charge.
(8) The requirements under subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) shall not apply where the police officer reasonably believes that
(a) compliance with any of the requirements is likely to result in
(i) an accomplice of the person arrested taking steps to avoid apprehension; or
(ii) the concealment, fabrication or destruction of evidence or the intimidation of a witness; or
(b) having regard to the safety of other persons the questioning or recording of any statement is so urgent that it should not be delayed.
(9) Subsection (8) shall only apply upon authorization by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
(10) The police officer giving the authorization under subsection (9) shall record the grounds of belief of the police officer that the conditions specified under subsection (8) will arise and such record shall be made as soon as practicable.
(11) The investigating officer shall comply with the requirements under subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) as soon as possible after the conditions specified under subsection (8) have ceased to apply where the person arrested is still under detention under this section or under section 117.
This is not the first time.During the gathering related to Hindraf many of educated Indian guys such as Engineers,Managers and so on were arrested.Their family members were not informed immediately.Only after one week their family members were informed.All these guys keep the incident in secret as they concern about their job and reputation.
ReplyDelete