Saturday, July 23, 2016
Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca) - when that is used, a person ends up usually with WITHOUT TRIAL orders - DETENTION ORDERS OR POLICE SUPERVISION ORDERS(RESTRICTION ORDERS).
A person detained under POCA - denied the right of a fair trial, and if he is subject to Detention Orders or Police Supervision(Restriction Orders), he does not have the right to challenge the reasons for the said order. He cannot go to court for a Judicial Review to enable the court to review the reasons and/or justifications for the said Detention or Police Supervision(Restriction Orders), which can be indefinite orders up to the discretion of the Board.
POCA and all such draconian laws should be REPEALED.
We still do not know how many people in Malaysia are in Detention Without Trial under POCA - the government must reveal this.
POCA has been around for some time, and finally with Sanjeevan's case, it has gotten public attention...With the use of POCA on Sanjeevan, it means that this law can also be used against Human Rights Defenders/Activist, NGO activist, Trade Unions ...Currently, the law cannot be used againt politicians or in connection with political activities..not enough.
Since Courts cannot review the REASONS - it means innocent persons are at risk of being detained wrongly..
MP Surendran is right - if Sanjeevan is being charged, this means he should no longer be under POCA - the right to a fair trial has been accorded to him...
He now has a right to apply for BAIL - and the court can grant him bail - and he will be released for now...if after trial, he is convicted, then he may be sentenced to imprisonment..
Flight Risk - well, part of the bail condition could be the withholding of his passport - remember that until convicted, he is presumed innocent...and Bail is only to ensure that he attends his trial..
See earlier posts:-
MP asks the need for Poca when Sanjeevan already charged22 Jul 2016, 11:53 am Updated
The police have been urged to release MyWatch chairperson R Sri Sanjeevan from detention under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca), since he has already been charged in court.
"On 19 July he was charged in court for various offences in relation to which he was purportedly being detained under Poca.
"Why then is he still detained under the Poca despite having been charged? He should be released on court bail," said Padang Serai N Surendran in a statement today
Surendran, a lawyer, said Sanjeevan's continued detention under the highly objectionable law, illustrates how detention without trial laws can be abused.
"In Sanjeevan's case, the abuse of Poca can be clearly seen.
"Since he was arrested on June 22, he was repeatedly remanded using the ordinary provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.
"After several remands orders, magistrates had started to reject police applications to further remand Sanjeevan.
"Then, the police resorted to the Poca to continue his detention," said Surendran.
'Why wait for police report?'
He also urged the police to take Sanjeevan's allegations of assault while in custody "seriously and carry out a thorough and impartial investigation" instead of waiting for a police report to be lodged.
"Sanjeevan's counsel had informed the sessions judge in open court regarding the alleged assault. Is that not enough for police to commence investigation?" he asked.
"All police personnel alleged to be involved should be transferred to other duties or if necessary suspended pending investigation. Has this been done?
"In this regard, it is unacceptable for the deputy IGP to announce that police will investigate if Sanjeevan lodges a police report," he said.
Sanjeevan was first arrested on June 22 on allegations of extorting RM25,000 from a gambling den operator.
Over the past three weeks, however, Sanjeevan had been released and re-arrested again and again for separate investigations under Sections 384 and 503 of the Penal Code, which deal with extortion and criminal intimidation respectively. He was arrested for the ninth time on Sunday under Poca, and was slapped with a 21-day remand by the Magistrate's Court in Kuala Lumpur on the following day.
Human rights group Suaram has urged for Sanjeevan’s immediate release, saying that the police appear to lack sufficient evidence to recommend charges against him and yet seek to punish him.