Why not just charge if they have the evidence...or are these 'suspects' mere distraction?

Many are pleased that the police have arrested 'suspects' with regard the incidences of vandalism/arson of places of worship - but I am concerned. I am concerned whether the correct persons were arrested...

After all, there has been a lot of 'public' pressure on the police, and sometimes just to 'reduce' this public media pressure, police may simply arrest persons and detain them. 

What are the evidence that the police have against these 'suspects', and why are they taking so much time to complete their investigations? After arrest, if the police need more time for investigations that require the presence of the 'suspect', then they go to court and apply for a remand order...

This is a simple case - and they should have either charged them in court, or released them. If the police do not have enough evidence, then they can always release now ....to arrest later and charge. There is no justification for such a long remand. 

 

Let us look at section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which discusses remand, and how long they can remand a person and for what purpose.. 

117.  Procedure where investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours.

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 28 and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded the police officer making the investigation shall immediately transmit to a Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case and shall at the same time produce the accused before the Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate before whom an accused person is produced under this section may, whether he has or has no jurisdiction to try the case, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as follows:

(a) if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with imprisonment of less than fourteen years, the detention shall not be more than four days on the first application and shall not be more than three days on the second application; or

(b) if the offence which is being investigated is punishable with death or imprisonment of fourteen years or more, the detention shall not be more than seven days on the first application and shall not be more than seven days on the second application.

(3) The officer making the investigation shall state in the copy of the entries in the diary referred to in subsection (1), any period of detention of the accused immediately prior to the application, whether or not such detention relates to the application.

(4) The Magistrate, in deciding the period of detention of the accused person, shall take into consideration any detention period immediately prior to the application, whether or not such detention relates to the application.

(5) The Magistrate in deciding the period of detention of the accused shall allow representations to be made either by the accused himself or through a counsel of his choice.

(6) If the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case and considers further detention unnecessary he may order the accused person to be produced before a Magistrate having such jurisdiction or, if the case is triable only by the High Court, before himself or another Magistrate having jurisdiction with a view to transmission for trial by the High Court.

(7) A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing. - (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (REVISED 1999)

 So, why are they still being held on remand - and why did the Magistrate allow a further 7 days..

The remand order on seven individuals suspected of arson attempts on two churches and a school in Taiping have been extended until Feb 2.

The seven-day extension was granted by Magistrate Rahni Kartini Abd Rahim today as the original order expired today.

Remand proceedings at the Taiping Magistrate Court were held behind closed doors.

The group - aged 17 to 29 - are being investigated under Section 295 of the Penal Code for defiling a place of worship and Section 436 for causing mischief with fire or explosives.

The first offense carries a maximum two-year jail penalty and/or a fine, while the second offense carries a maximum 20-year jail term and/or a fine.

They were detained on Jan 22 to assist investigations over the Jan 10 arson attempts on St Louis Church (left), All Saints Church and SMK Convent.

Molotov cocktails were hurled at the three structures which resulted in minimal damage.

The incident in Taiping is believed to be related to the landmark High Court judgment which overturned the Home Ministry ban on the use of the term 'Allah' by Catholic magazine Herald Weekly.

Since the controversial decision last month, numerous places of worship of several faiths have been struck by vandalism or attempted arson attacks. Most targets have been churches.- Malaysiakini, 27/1/2010, Seven suspected 'arsonists' remand extended

What are the offence they are being suspected of? 

Section 295 of the Penal Code

295.  Injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class.

Whoever destroys, damages, or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons, or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage, or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 436 for causing mischief with fire or explosives

436.  Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house, etc.
Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship, or for the administration of justice, or for the transaction of public affairs, or for education, or art, or for public use or ornament, or as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine.