TEACHER(cum Caretaker), who caned child for littering, etc, UNJUSTLY sentenced to 10 years? If he had nothing to do with GISBH, would his sentence be much lower?

TEACHER(cum Caretaker) sentenced to 10 years in prison after admitting to inflicting physical injuries on three children, aged 10 to 12, under his care.The prison sentence will be served consecutively, starting from the date of his arrest. Was the sentence excessive - even PM Najib who was sentenced a total of 72 years, was allowed to serve his sentence NOT Consecutively - but at the same time, so just 12 years. 

But this 'teacher' was sentenced to serve

...ex-Prime Minister Najib for SEVEN offenses and sentenced to a total of 72 years and fines

For the three criminal breach of trust offences under Section 409 of the Penal Code, he ordered Najib to serve 10 years for each count.

Najib was also ordered to serve 10 years jail for each of the three counts of money laundering under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).

For the abuse of power charge, he was sentenced to 12 years...

FIRST ACT OF MERCY - Rather than being ordered to serve 72 years in prison, the court ordered all the prison sentences of the 7 offenses to be served at the same time... and not consecutively. - Najib's PARDON now may have serious impact to Malaysia, Malaysian law enforcement, prosecution and courts?

Let's look at the crimes, he was convicted for - 

...struck the victim’s right palm with a cane for littering.A cane and a mobile phone containing a video recording of the suspect striking the child five times were seized during the operation.

The caretaker, also a teacher at Miftahul Hikmah Integrated Islamic Primary School, confessed to striking the second victim six times on the palm which potentially caused injuries.

In a separate instance, he also admitted to pressing down on another victim’s chest with his knee, causing bruises and exposing old wounds on the thumb. 

 assaulting the third victim using a cane, a broomstick, and a badminton racket, all of which were stored in the teacher’s room.

TRUE, they were CRIMES - but justly, a sentence of 10 years was excessive - in my opinion, a sentence of 1 - 4 years would have been more just.

What happened to the teacher, who punished children by asking them to stand out under the blazing sun...the case where a 11 year old student, who after being punished by having to stand under the hot sun suffered heat exhaustion or heat stroke, that also caused nerve damage and have now made a previously healthy child into now, a person with disabilities. Minister Fadhlina Sidek must APOLOGIZE and ensure teacher perpetrators charged in court for 'torture' of 11 year old, asked to stand under the sun - now became a person with disabilities?

 Has that teacher been charged and tried in court yet? This was a serious case of TORTURE and a normal child had became disabled for life.

EGG-SHELL Principle -  the rule encapsulates the idea that if someone is particularly delicate (has a skull as thin as an eggshell, say), then someone who injures them is still responsible for the extent of the damage, even if it's unforeseeable because a non-delicate person wouldn't have suffered the same damage.

In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", as echoed in the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue (1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim,.

So. the excuse that the child was exceptionally weak, and that is why he suffered heatstroke and permanent mental disability is NO DEFENCE for the teacher who punished the child by asking him to stand under the hot sun. Charge that teacher immediately, if he is still not being charged yet.

With regards the caretaker at GISBH - note there was no lawyer present, and without a lawyer, it is dangerous.

Why did he even confess to all the crimes? Video Recording - who did the recording? An accomplice? WHY? As there was no TRIAL, that will not even be challenged.

What 'confession'? In Malaysia, confessions, taken after arrest and detention, are no longer admissible in court if presented by prosecution - so what confession? When accused, he would have only pleaded guilty to the charge..

Why did he plead guilty?

Of course, most people knew that following the HUGE crackdown on GISBH, this conviction of a staff of GIBSH was needed? So, was he pressured or 'threatened' to confess? As we know, to date we have heard no conviction about sexual abuse and sodomy yet - the very allegations that angered people a lot...

A fair sentence for 23 year old who pleaded guilty would have been just..

As this man, may still have no lawyer, he would most likely not even appeal the rather 'UNJUST' sentence of 10 years - as appeal needs to be done within a certain time...so, he will languish in prison for 10 years - out in 2034??

See also:- 

9/11 GISBH - What is happening? Are the actions in accordance with law? PAS raises concern about unfair targetting of business premises?

 

Caretaker at GISBH Klang welfare home gets 10 years jail for abusing children

Muhammad Barur Rahim, 23, appeared before the Klang Sessions Court today and confessed to committing the offence at the Al-Mahabbah Welfare and Education Organisation in Bukit Raja, Klang Utara, in July 2024. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

By Anis Zalani

Thursday, 26 Sep 2024 1:23 PM MYT

KLANG, Sept 26 — A caretaker at a GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH)-linked home in Klang has been sentenced to 10 years in prison after admitting to inflicting physical injuries on three children, aged 10 to 12, under his care.

Muhammad Barur Rahim, 23, appeared before the Klang Sessions Court today and confessed to committing the offence at the Al-Mahabbah Welfare and Education Organisation in Bukit Raja, Klang Utara, in July 2024.

According to the prosecution, he reportedly struck the victim’s right palm with a cane for littering.

He was charged under Section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001, which carries a maximum penalty of a RM50,000 fine or up to 20 years imprisonment, or both upon conviction.

The verdict was delivered by Sessions Court Judge Noridah Adam.

The prosecution also said that a team of investigators from the D14 Criminal Investigation Department and officers from the Social Welfare Department conducted a raid earlier this month at the premise after receiving information regarding child exploitation.

A cane and a mobile phone containing a video recording of the suspect striking the child five times were seized during the operation.

The caretaker, also a teacher at Miftahul Hikmah Integrated Islamic Primary School, confessed to striking the second victim six times on the palm which potentially caused injuries.

In a separate instance, he also admitted to pressing down on another victim’s chest with his knee, causing bruises and exposing old wounds on the thumb.

Barur also confessed to assaulting the third victim using a cane, a broomstick, and a badminton racket, all of which were stored in the teacher’s room.

The prosecution requested that the court consider imposing an additional sentence, requiring the accused to enter into a bond with sureties to maintain good behaviour for a period deemed appropriate by the court.

Failure to comply with the bond conditions could result in an additional fine of up to RM10,000 or imprisonment for up to five years, or both.

The prison sentence will be served consecutively, starting from the date of his arrest. - Malay Mail, 26/9/2024

Yusoff Rawther - Languishing in Detention Since 12/9/2024? No High Court Judge used Revisionary Power? DPP/AG not DNAAed? Lawyer files new application, not for Revision?

Muhammed Yusoff Rawther was brought to the Magistrate Court on 12/9/2024(Thursday) - and charged for DRUG TRAFFICKING under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, an offence that still carries the DEATH sentence..hence the High Court is the court with jurisdiction to try criminal cases of offences that carry the death penalty. At the Magistrate Court, the charge was only read - but no PLEA was taken, as this will happen at the High Court who has the jurisdiction to TRY the case. No application for BAIL was made, based on media reports, and again we ask WHY?

Thus, immediately thereafter, on the same day or the day after, he should have been taken to the High Court and charged - BUT that is not happened yet until this day(3/10/2024) - and the question is WHY? 

The legal principle, accepted also in Malaysian courts, is that '...a person should not be charged in Court until the investigation into the case against him has been completed and there is prima facie evidence to prosecute him of the charge. In other words, a person should not be put in peril of a criminal trial unless the prosecution is able to prove the case against him...'

In the Malaysian case of   Public Prosecutor V. Tan Kim San [1980] CLJU 66[1980] 1 LNS 66,  the late Harun J  said

The principle is that a person should not be charged in Court until the investigation into the case against him has been completed and there is prima facie evidence to prosecute him of the charge. In other words, a person should not be put in peril of a criminal trial unless the prosecution is able to prove the case against him. To do otherwise is an injustice. It is unjust because of the social stigma that immediately attaches to a person once he is charged in Court. He is deserted by his friends. His business is affected. His creditors close on him. His family is ashamed. He is mentally tormented awaiting trial. And last but not least, he has to incur the expense of engaging Counsel. There is no consolation in the fact that he may eventually be shown to be innocent of the charge. The damage has been done. -The legal principle as to when one should be CHARGED, Arrested and released on Police Bail - The Case of PP v Tan Kim San, judgement of late Supreme Court Judge Harun Mahmud Hashim

Charging a person pre-maturely is a GROSS INJUSTICE and, in this case, there is reason to believe that this is exactly what had happened..

WHY?

'...Deputy public prosecutor Mohd Sabri Othman asked the court to set a mention date pending the results of the substances which has been sent to the Department of Chemistry to be analysed.The court set Nov 12 for mention...'- NST, 12/9/2024 

1 - The fact that prosecutor ADMITTED that investigations not yet completed. They were still waiting for the  '...results of the substances which has been sent to the Department of Chemistry to be analysed...' 

Hence, the prosecution is YET TO CONFIRM that it was dangerous drugs. So, reasonably the charging now with the offence of DRUG TRAFFICKING is WRONG and premature, and going against the accepted principle of NO CHARGING until investigations complete, and the prosecution is convinced they can prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

2 - The fact that the prosecution applied for another mention date at the Magistrate, which was set for November 12  - confirms the WRONGFUL PREMATURE CHARGING. The prosecution should have immediately brought the case to the High Court and charged him for this offence that carries the death penalty...

Maybe, after they get the results - they may drop the charge, because what they thought was drugs turn out to be sugar, flour or some other powder?

Maybe, after they get the results - the results may show that WEIGHT of the drugs was less than what was required to be charged for DRUG TRAFFICKING - so they may alter the charge and charge him maybe for the lesser offence of DRUG POSSESSION.

MADPET calls on any judge in the High Court to act fast in exercising their powers of revision to ensure injustice suffered by Muhammed Yusoff Rawther is ended soonest.

DISCHARGE(DNAA) for Yusoff Rawther - No person to be charged until investigation complete ## still waiting for '..results of the substances which has been sent to the Department of Chemistry to be analysed..'

However, to date, NO High Court Judge has done so yet. In the Tan Kim San case too, it was a Magistrate Court case, then High Court Judge Harun called up the case for revision - The Judge can call up a case for REVISION on his/her own motion, or there can be application by the accused or the prosecution for revision - so, make the application for REVISION Yusoff Rawther(and/or his lawyer) - not done.

This is also a case, where the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor can use his powers to discontinue criminal proceedings, so that Yusoff is immediately DISCHARGED - given a DNAA. If, and when prosecution completes their investigation and are of the opinion that they have sufficient evidence to prove a Prima Facie case, or that Yusoff is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then the AG/PP has the power to CHARGE him again or RE_CHARGE him. But, the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor has not yet used his power to end this injustice that Yusoff Rawther faces now - languishing in detention.

On the other hand, Yusoff Rawther has applied for REVISION but then he has filed another application... 

Yusoff has filed an originating summons, dated September 27, seeking a court order to declare Section 41B unconstitutional. ... challenging the constitutionality of Section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which prohibits bail for drug trafficking charges, according to his lawyer, Rafique Rashid Ali.

His lawyer may have a different opinion and strategy, but me(as a lawyer) feel that on 12/9/2024, Yusoff should have applied for BAIL, and if the Magistrate refused it on the ground that it an 'non-bailable' offence, then maybe an appeal or an application that denial of bail is unconstitutional...But, in this case, media reports suggest that NO BAIL application was made, and neither did the Magistrate deny bail on the grounds that it was a 'non-bailable' offence.

As it, Malaysian law already do provide that a person accused of non-bailable offence MAY be released on bail. In fact, there may be several applications for bail at different stages of the trial.. As I mentioned earlier, even for unbailable offences, bail is possible. The only hurdle is when Parliament in law says that Bail Shall Not Be Granted as it does in SOSMA - here too, the matter may still be challenged. A primary principle is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court after a fair trial. Hence, no 'punishment' or deprivation of liberty unless there is some exceptional reason of flight risk, tampering of evidence,..that is based on some reasonable evidence. With the availability of modern technology, like electronic tracking - the justification for the denial of bail is significantly diminished. The fact that trials take a long time in Malaysia, which means a prolonged detention - and an grave miscarriage of justice when and if the courts find the accused not guilty. Justice really demands a speedy trial for those languishing in detention - trials of such persons should be done within 3-6 months maximum... Note a person in detention is also prejudiced as he cannot easily prepare for his Defence...

388  When person accused of non-bailable offence may be released on bail [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE]

(1) When any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by a police officer or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on bail by the officer in charge of the police district or by that Court, but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to forty years:

Provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail.

(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of that officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.

(3) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under subsection (1) or (2) shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.

(4) If at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.

(5) Any Court may at any subsequent stage of any proceeding under this Code cause any person who has been released under this section to be arrested and may commit him to custody.

See also:-

Yusoff Rawther should have been brought to the High Court immediately to be charged with? Fumble on Bail Application? Expedite Yusoff's case against Anwar..

Yusoff Rawther, compared with Police assault of e-hailing driver Ong - Is there a policy to protect police that commit crimes? Should Yusoff be DNAAed - as investigation not completed?

The legal principle as to when one should be CHARGED, Arrested and released on Police Bail - The Case of PP v Tan Kim San, judgement of late Supreme Court Judge Harun Mahmud Hashim

 

Ex-research assistant Yusoff Rawther challenges ‘no bail’ rule in drug law, seeks co

Muhammed Yusoff Rawther, currently held in Sungai Buloh prison while awaiting trial, is charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Act for trafficking 305g of cannabis. — Picture by Ahmad Zamzahuri

By Malay Mail

Wednesday, 02 Oct 2024 10:04 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 2 — Former research assistant Muhammed Yusoff Rawther is challenging the constitutionality of Section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which prohibits bail for drug trafficking charges, according to his lawyer, Rafique Rashid Ali.

Yusoff, currently held in Sungai Buloh prison while awaiting trial, is charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Act for trafficking 305g of cannabis, according to a report published yesterday in Free Malaysia Today.

He was arrested on September 6 in a car park near the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters, and no plea has been recorded.

Rafique argues that the no-bail provision in Section 41B creates an injustice, especially for defendants with legitimate defences or unique circumstances requiring the court’s consideration for bail.

“Section 41B stipulates that no bail shall be granted for certain drug-related offences. This is unfair in cases where a defendant has a strong defence or special circumstances that necessitate bail,” Rafique said in a statement.

Yusoff has filed an originating summons, dated September 27, seeking a court order to declare Section 41B unconstitutional.

He argues that the provision limits the court’s ability to assess whether bail should be granted, despite any extenuating circumstances.

“Through the originating summons, Yusoff is seeking an order to declare Section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 as unconstitutional, as it limits the existing powers of the court in deliberating or granting bail,” Rafique added.

The court has scheduled case management for October 23 to deliberate on the matter.

Despite the stringent legal framework, Rafique confirmed he will be applying for bail for Yusoff, citing concerns over his client’s security. - Malay Mail, 2/10/2024

 

Malaysian Lawyers are Human Rights Defenders - From statements and meetings to 2,000 lawyers taking part in Peaceful Assembly in upholding the cause of justice.

EXTRAORDINARY - Malaysian Lawyers and the Malaysian Bar stands out in their commitment against Human Rights and Injustice, compared to lawyers and their associations worldwide. As it is important to share this achievements, I have decided to pen several articles to show how this happened over the years. 2,000 plus lawyers coming out to participate in peaceful assemblies, not once but several times, to uphold the cause of justice is a BIG DEAL. 1st of many more articles. Hopefully these articles inspires lawyers and their associations everywhere today and tommorrow - and also other democratic organizations ..   

GOING BEYOND TALK INTO ACTIONS BY MALAYSIAN LAWYERS IN UPHOLDING CAUSE OF JUSTICE - AN INSPIRATION FOR PEOPLE AND THEIR DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS

Malaysian Bar and its member lawyers had been exceptional in upholding the cause of justice without fear or favour. Besides speaking out or conveying their views in closed door meetings with authorities, they have also resorted to peaceful assembly as a tool for advocacy and change before as it did in 1981 in a walk to Parliament to protest against the government’s proposed amendments to both the Societies Act and the Federal Constitution. 

However, thereafter, there was a lull. Things changed. It was only in the late 90s, primarily by the actions initiates of several member lawyers did we see a revival, and we would here try to recall what and how this happened. 

Here, we will focus on the use of peaceful assembly as a tool for change, and increased participation of member lawyers in actions. Different from meetings trying to convince those holding power, peaceful assembly and public protest targets the Malaysian public as a whole, not just those having power now. It is certainly more effective, for if the masses accept, leaders or those in power has little choice but to follow what the people desire,

In Malaysia, since the late 90os, it started with individual lawyers coming out in support of fellow lawyers, and it has moved to larger issues that affect society. 

Cheah Kah Peng - lawyer harassed/threatened by police in 2000

On 16^th April 2000, a lawyer (Cheah Kah Peng) was forcibly pushed away from his client, angrily shouted at by Police Officers at the Petaling Jaya Police District Headquarters and then told he was going to be charged with obstruction of public servant in the course of his duties. On 18^th April 2000, a group of about 15 young lawyers went to the Ibu Pejabat Daerah Petaling Jaya to hand over a memorandum of protest, which was signed by 107 lawyers, to the Officer in Charge of the Police District(OCPD) of Petaling Jaya. That action was initiated by then young lawyers, including N. Surendran and Charles Hector, who collected signatures from lawyers at the courts in Jalan Raja and Wisma Denmark.

Then only did the Bar Council respond by sending a delegation to meet up with the Deputy Inspector General of Police on Thursday 20th April 2000, and thereafter, a press statement by the then President,  Haji Sulaiman Abdullah. entitled “Arrest of lawyer in P.J. Police Station” was issued. 

Cheah Kah Peng - lawyer harassed/threatened by police in 2001

In 2001, again a memorandum, with 107 lawyers signatures, was presented by lawyers Charles Hector and N. Surendran to PJ Deputy OCPD Supt. Hussein Ismail. Cheah Kah Peng, a member of the Malaysian Bar, who was arrested and "treated badly" while he performed his legal duty in representing his client.Cheah was also taken to the lock-up where he was ordered to strip but the order was withdrawn after he removed his shirt and socks. He was released on the police bail after a statement under Section 113 was recorded

S. Balasubramaniam - lawyer harassed/threatened by police in 2006

In 2006, another incident took place. 

Mr S. Balasubramaniam, a lawyer went to PJ Police Headquarters to provide legal assistance to his clients, who had been detained by police, denied access to lawyer and allegedly manhandled. 

Despite his repeated requests by his lawyer, the police refused to give the lawyer information about the reasons for the arrests. S. Balasubramaniam was also allegedly physically pushed and unlawfully arrested and  detained by a plainclothes policeman. He was released after three hours of detention without any reason being given for his arrest.

This outrage led to fellow lawyers, who did approach the Bar Council demanding prompt action and protest but unfortunately the Bar Council then seem not inclined to do anything fast.The hope was that the elected Bar leadership will lead, and lawyer members will support.

Disappointment with Bar's response, several lawyers including N.Surendran and myself(Charles Hector) decided to still act. The fact that the Malaysian Bar leadership or Bar Council elects not to act fast, does not excuse individual lawyers who also believes that upholding the cause of justice without fear or favour not to act.

Hence, we speedily drafted a short petition of protest, and then went around the courts seeking support from fellow lawyers urging them to sign the petition which we intended to later that day  to physically handover to the police at the Petaling Jaya police headquarters.  More than 112 lawyers signed the petition and about 30 plus lawyers turned up at the PJ police station to hand it over to the police. [See below the said Memorandum of Protest, which also list names of lawyers that signed it] 

When the Bar Council found out about the protest, the Council changed its mind and dispatched one of its principal office bearers, George Varughese to join the protest at the police station. The lawyers present decided that the Bar Council representative would be allowed to hand over the petition. This incident was significant as the Bar Council for the very first time, came and was part of this protest action.

that showed clearly that the time had come for the Bar and lawyers to engage in new forms of actions, BEYOND just the issuance of statements, or raising matters with meetings with Ministers or relevant authorities.

Empowering Lawyers

For the very first time, individual lawyers were asked to personally participate in actions to uphold the cause of justice. It takes great courage in putting your name down in protest memorandums, and even more in going personally to join a protest in front of a police station. 

In most organizations, only the leadership acts whilst members are deprived of actual participation in actions. This changed in these protests involving lawyers, and this certainly changed Malaysian lawyers - who now was ready and braver to come out personally in the fight for justice without fear and favour. 

When lawyer members change, leadership too will have to change, or risk being discarded by members. The Bar changed - with ordinary member lawyers demanding not just more actions in matters of justice and rights, but also greater personal participation in these actions.

This incidents of protest, initiated and done by individual lawyers impacted the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar leadership. After the 2006 incident, the Bar Council took a more active leadership in these protest actions that involved the participation of member lawyers.

The message was simply that if you do not act, then we, the ordinary lawyers, will act and that may be an embarrassment to the Bar Council itself.

Since then, we are happy to note that the Bar Council has repeatedly provided leadership in taking actions like organizing of protests and/or peaceful assemblies in upholding the cause of justice without fear or favor.

That action was significant, for it affected change in the Malaysian Bar's actions. It moved from issuing of public statements and raising matters in meetings, to now even taking to the streets exercising our right to Peaceful Assembly.

26/9/2007 - "Lawyers don't walk every day. Not even every month. But when they walk, then something must be very wrong," said Chairman of the Bar Council Ambiga Sreenevasan when addressing a strong crowd of more than 2,000 members of the Malaysian Bar and some concerned citizens at the Palace of Justice before the commencement of the walk to the Prime Minister's office to hand over the Bar's memorandum urging the government to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to probe the state of judiciary and memorandum on the establishment of a judicial appointments and promotion commission(Malaysian Bar Website) 

On 29 Nov 2011 (Tuesday), more than 1,000 participants, comprising Members of the Bar, representatives of civil society and members of the public joined Malaysian Bar’s Walk for Freedom to Walk, an initiative to object to the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (“Bill”). ’They chanted "freedom to assembly" and "freedom to the people", before police stopped most of them from entering the complex…They say the new laws - which do allow gatherings in designated places like stadiums and public halls - are more repressive than the old ones…’(BBC News, 29/11/2011) 

On 16/10/2014, NEARLY 2,000 Malaysian lawyers braved the noon day heat in their suits and ties to protest this year's "sedition blitz" outside Parliament building calling for the repeal of the Sedition Act.   The decision to protest was pursuant to a Malaysian Bar Resolution on Sedition Act in 2014, where members, amongst others, resolved that ‘…(H) The Malaysian Bar mandates the Bar Council to immediately organise a peaceful protest in the form of a walk and to take any and all such further action as it deems appropriate or necessary in order to advance and promote the matters herein and to uphold the principles of the Malaysian Bar…’ 

 

In 17 June 2022 -  The Malaysian Bar's  'Walk for Judicial Independence' march to uphold the independence of the courts and oppose any attempts to intimidate judges, was blocked by the police that prevented about 500 lawyers from marching to Parliament. The Bar has commenced legal action  against the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), the Malaysian government, and several other parties for violating its right of peaceful assembly.

 

When 2,000 plus lawyers, not just a handful, turn up for peaceful assembly actions, it is indicative of the increased commitment to Malaysian lawyers to justice and human rights. Distance and prior commitments prevent even more from participating, noting that the Bar membership is spread all over Peninsular Malaysia. It is interesting to note to actively insist of peaceful assembly actions or stronger actions that what the Bar Council itself first proposes. Even at the 2024 Annual General Meeting, members resolved also the calling repeal of the SOSMA and considering a peaceful protest for its repeal.

Besides these actions, lawyers have repeatedly come out in numbers against 'attacks' of fellow lawyers by State. As an example, on 8 May 2009, 200 lawyers have gathered at court complex in Kuala Lumpur  to protest against the arrest of five lawyers (Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Syuhaini Safwan, Puspawati Rosman, Ravinder Singh and Murnie Hidayah Anuar), who  of their colleagues late last night. The lawyers were arrested for alleged illegal assembly after attempting to provide legal assistance to a group of individuals who arrested for holding a candlelight vigil in support of activist Wong Chin Huat.

The Bar leadership also have been proactive when, for example, the Bar Council in 2016 called on lawyers to gather at the federal police headquarters in Bukit Aman tomorrow when four lawyers will be questioned under the Sedition Act 1948 over a Malaysian Bar motion urging the Attorney-General to resign. Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said in a circular to members of the peninsula legal body today that it was unacceptable for the police to record statements from Malaysian Bar secretary Karen Cheah, as well as the three lawyers — Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and R. Shanmugam — who had moved the motion that was later adopted at the Malaysian Bar’s annual general meeting (AGM) on March 19 with over 700 votes.

How the Malaysian Bar, and its member lawyers have progressed in the defence and promotion of human rights is outstanding, and one prays that this will continue and progress more in our struggle to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour.

-#-

Note:- Here I have focused on just one aspect, there are more, so do wait for the next artcles..

Arrest of lawyer in P.J. Police Station 20 Apr 2000 12:00 am

The Police are an integral part of the Criminal Justice System. Lawyers are an equally integral part of the process. Hence all right–thinking people in the country would be affected if these 2 parts of the system are seen to be in conflict.

It is in this light that the Bar Council is gravely disturbed about the arrest of Cheah Kah Peng, a young lawyer, in Petaling Jaya Police Station on 16th April 2000. Saudara Cheah was at the Police Station for the purpose of looking after the legal rights of his client, Tian Chua.

Saudara Cheah has informed the Bar Council that he was forcibly pushed away from his client, angrily shouted at by Police Officers and then told he was going to be charged with obstruction of public servant in the course of his duties. Saudara Cheah was there to protect his client in the execution of his duty. Instead he was thoroughly intimidated, pushed around and accused of a criminal offence.

After having seen and heard Saudara Cheah and read the Police Report lodged by Saudara Cheah at the P.J. Police Station at the time of his arrest, the Bar Council requested an urgent meeting on this issue with the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dato’ Jamil Johari, in the absence of the Inspector General who is currently overseas.

The Bar Council welcomes the positive reaction of the Deputy I.G.P. who met the representatives of the Council on Thursday 20th April 2000. The Bar Council emphasised that while not wishing to lessen public confidence in the Police in any way, the Bar Council was concerned that events such as 16th April 2000 may cause lawyers to fear to enter Police Stations or to act fearlessly in the defence of their clients.

Dato’ Jamil assured the Council that there would be full investigation into the whole incident. He re–assured the Bar Council that he and his senior officers fully appreciate the role of the Bar Council and the function of the individual lawyer seeking to protect his client.

Dato’ Jamil stated that the Police were generally concerned to ensure that investigations are not impeded. However, Police Stations should be safe places and no cases of intimidation should occur. Both parties were of the view that over–zealous officers could mishandle a situation but efforts would be made to ensure that the rights of a client to consult a lawyer as well as the right of the lawyer to carry out his functions are respected by the Police.

The Bar Council stresses that the independent lawyer is a vital asset in national development and a key element in the development of a healthy vibrant democracy.

The Bar Council is continuously monitoring the situation to ensure that lawyers in Malaysia will be able to carry out their functions without fear or favour and completely free from any threats or retaliation.

HAJI SULAIMAN ABDULLAH
PENGERUSI
20th April 2000 - Malaysian Bar Website

 

• 
  

Some 40 lawyers stage a protest outside PJ Police Headquarters  

27 Apr 2006 12:00 am

Surendran, George and Charles handing over the Memorandum of Protest to a police officer

On 18.04.2006, lawyer S. Balasubramaniam (picture), was at PJ Police Headquarters in order to render legal assistance to his clients who had been detained by police.

Despite his repeated requests, the police refused to give him information about the reason for the arrests and the suspected offence that his clients were arrested for.

S. Balasubramaniam was physically pushed and then unlawfully arrested by a plainclothes policeman.

Balasubramaniam was released after 3 hours of detention without reasons being given for his arrest. He lodged a police report (PJ/004538/06) with regard his treatment by the police.

We, the undersigned lawyers, are concerned and very disturbed by the police action of wrongfully harassing, arresting and detaining a lawyer who was there representing and performing his duties as a lawyer for his clients.

We demand that :–

a. That S. Balasubramaniam’s complaint be immediately investigated by an investigation team independent of the PJ Police Headquarters;

b. That stern action be taken against all those police officers responsible for this incident;

c. The police officers responsible be forthwith suspended pending investigation;

d. That the CPO of Selangor/ IGP immediately gives an undertaking that there will be no repeat of such interferences with and/or harassment of an advocate carrying out his duties in any police station in Malaysia.

1 Sharmini Thiruchelvam Kuala Lumpur
2 Colin anak Victor George Malaysian Bar
3 Bernard Chong Malaysian Bar
4 Fadzila Binti Said Malaysian Bar
5 Dara Waheda Mohd Rufin Malaysian Bar
6 Richard Wee Thiam Seng Kuala Lumpur
7 L.Y.Lee Kuala Lumpur
8 Charles Hector Petaling Jaya
9 N.Surendran Kuala Lumpur
10 Ahmad Zainuddin Dataran Palma
11 Khaznim Dataran Palma
12 Leena Ghosh Petaling Jaya
13 Francis Pereira Kuala Lumpur
14 Kasthury S* Petaling Jaya
15 Vasandi K K. Vasandi & Co
16 Ng See Kee Penang
17 George Varughese Petaling Jaya
18 Stanly Sinnapan Kuala Lumpur
19 Moganamball Kuala Lumpur
20 Edmund Bon Kuala Lumpur
21 Jeremy Tan Jeremy & Sazlin
22 Balakrishnan A Bala Naido & ..
23 Nik Mohamed Ikhwan Kuala Lumpur
24 Koong Len Sheng Kuala Lumpur
25 Shanker Sivapragasam Kuala Lumpur
26 Chin Pien Yee Kuala Lumpur
27 Erene Lee Lin Lin Kuala Lumpur
28 John You Choon Kit Kuala Lumpur
29 Puspawati Rosman Kuala Lumpur
30 Fazlina Pawan T eh Kuala Lumpur
31 Nelson Awgang Kuala Lumpur
32 John Yong Tee Kong Puchong
33 Irene Song Lai Kuan Puchong
34 David Charles Petaling Jaya
35 Will Fung Kuala Lumpur
36 R. Shamuga Nathan R.Shan & Associates
37 Grudit Singh R.Shan & Associates
38 Subajayanthi K Negeri Sembilan
39 Yee Seu Kai Ipoh
40 Chong Kok Yew Ipoh
41 Venkadesh Ipoh
42 Zainorah Hassan Ipoh
43 Mohd Syukri Yahaya Ipoh
44 G. Balasunderam Ipoh
45 Kerpal Singh Ipoh
46 Feg Agis Ipoh
47 Lim Ta Wai Ipoh
48 Chan Kok Keong Ipoh
49 Al Hundallah * Ipoh
50 Lai Choe Ken Ipoh
51 Ellanggovan * Ipoh
52 Srividhya Ganapathy Kuala Lumpur
53 Muhendaran Suppiah Kuala Lumpur
54 Kavitha Guna Segaran Kuala Lumpur
55 Liu Meng Wun Kuala Lumpur
56 Modeshanantham V. Perak
57 Leong Kow Hoo Perak
58 Amret Dhillon Perak
59 James Devadason Perak
60 Harbhajan Singh Perak
61 K.C.Lai Perak
62 Mary Lim Perak
63 Leon Julian Perak
64 Annou Xavier Kuala Lumpur
65 Kee Seok Meng Kuala Lumpur
66 Chow Wei Cheng Kuala Lumpur
67 Lim Ching Liew Kuala Lumpur
68 George Miranda Kuala Lumpur
69 Gerald Samuel Kuala Lumpur
70 Khor Lee Chin Kuala Lumpur
71 Kenny Ng Bee Ken Kuala Lumpur
72 Lee Swee Seng Kuala Lumpur
73 G.Nanda Goban Kuala Lumpur
74 Yap Wai Kit Kuala Lumpur
75 Tay Ka Ping Kuala Lumpur
76 Lavinia Kumaraendran Kuala Lumpur
77 Owee Chia Ming Kuala Lumpur
78 Shanthi Supramaniam Kuala Lumpur
79 Priscilly J. Edison, Kuala Lumpur
80 Harmeet Kaur, Kuala Lumpur
81 TM Yap, Kuala Lumpur
81 Lim Yap Kuala Lumpur
82 Ong Bee Koon Kuala Lumpur
83 Lilian Siew Kuala Lumpur
84 Ravindran S Kuala Lumpur
85 Yoong Kien Fah Kuala Lumpur
86 Karina Yong Penang
87 Theivanai Amerthalingam* Penang
88 S. Kumaari Munusamy Penang
89 Jessica Binwani Penang
90 Chong Poh Ken Petaling Jaya
91 Ng Kah Fei Petaling Jaya
92 Tan Ban Cheng Penang
93 Mohamed Fadly Zakaruya Kuala Lumpur
94 Ravindran S Kuala Lumpur
95 Leong Kong Meng Penang
96 Radehayati Johateh Petaling Jaya
97 R. Shanmugam Kuala Lumpur
98 Augustine Anthony Ipoh
99 Ng Poh Tat Ipoh
100 Shaznam Haseena Ipoh
101 Kenneth Gomes Kuala Lumpur
102 Tha*** S*** Ipoh
103 Sunder Singh Ipoh
104 Edwin Seibel Ipoh
105 Joshua Leong Ipoh
106 Raden A.Shauki Perak Bar
107 Christina Loke Kuala Lumpur
108 Lee Woan Chyi Kuala Lumpur
109 Sivarasah Rasiah Kuala Lumpur
110 M. Puravalen Kuala Lumpur
111 Chew Swee Yoke Kuala Lumpur
112 Amer Hamzah Kuala Lumpur
* Some of the names and addresses were unclear – we did our best to try to get it correct.

Related stories:

30 protest unlawful arrest of lawyer

Lawyer 'detained', peers cry foul

Source: Malaysian Bar Website

• Go back to list

30 protest unlawful arrest of lawyer 28 Apr 2006 12:00 am

©The Sun (Used by permission)
By Giam Say Khoon

PETALING JAYA: About 30 lawyers held an hour–long demonstration in front of the Petaling Jaya police headquarters today (April 27, 2006) to protest the mistreatment of a lawyer by the police.

Bar Council representative George Varughese, who led the demonstration, said the protest was over the unlawful arrest and detention of a lawyer last week.

Lawyer S. Bala has reportedly been arrested and detained by police on April 18, 2006, when he was at the police station about 6.30pm to provide legal representation to a client who was detained by police together with 14 Chinese nationals in a restaurant.

Bala told reporters that when he repeatedly sought the reason for his client's arrest, his request was ignored and he was asked to leave.

"When I persisted to know the reason, I was pushed out of the investigation officer's office by two plainclothes police personnel."

He further claimed that while walking down the stairway, he was arrested without being told the reason by another plainclothes policeman, and detained for three hours, before he was finally released.

Bala, who lodged a police report on his mistreatment upon his release, also lodged a complaint with the Bar Council.

The peaceful demonstration held under the watchful eyes of several Federal Reserve Unit personnel carrying batons and shields, dispersed after Varughese handed over a memorandum signed by 103 lawyers to DSP Ahmad Asri Jamaluddin, who represented district police chief ACP Mohd Hazam Abdul Halim.

Mohd Hazam, when contacted later, refused to comment on the protest.

Varughese said it was an unfair treatment as it was not proper for a lawyer, who was performing his or her duties by representing his or her client, to be arrested without being told why.

He said the Bar Council will meet Inspector–General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar to demand a full investigation over the incident.

In the memorandum, the lawyers demanded that:

*Bala's complaint be immediately investigated by an investigation team independent of PJ police headquarters;

*stern action be taken against the police officers responsible for the incident;

*the officers responsible be suspended pending investigation; and

*the IGP provide an undertaking that there will be no repeat of such interference with and/or harassment of lawyers carrying out their duties while in police stations.

Lawyer 'detained', peers cry foul 27 Apr 2006 12:00 am

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
By Andrew Ong

S Bala went looking for his client who was arrested during a raid at a restaurant earlier in the night. But what the lawyer had not expected, was to land in detention himself.

Bala’s April 18 ordeal began when we went to the Petaling Jaya district police headquarters after being informed of the arrest.

There, he was supposedly given the run–around for about two–hours before finally being told the name of the police officer who led the raid.

After this, the 34–year–old lawyer claimed he was harassed by two plainclothes policemen who refused to allow him to meet the officer.

When he persisted, the policemen purportedly grew annoyed and began to shove him about. An irate Bala then responded: “There is no need to be kurang ajar (rude)”.

Realising that he was getting no where, Bala proceeded to leave the police headquarters but was arrested by another plainclothes policeman and detained in the operation room for three hours.

Contacted today, the lawyer, who has been practicing for nine years, said he was more upset with the police withholding information regarding his client compared to his detention.

“I am not against the entire force but just a few police officers. The police should learn to allow lawyers to serve their clients without fear or favour and be more transparent,” he added

It is learnt that Bala had lodged a police report over the matter.

Bad precedent

The incident had enraged his peers, leading some 40 lawyers to stage a protest outside the police headquarters this morning.

Under the watchful eyes of five Light Strike Force personnel, the lawyers argued with police officers to be allowed to meet district police chief Mohd Hazam Abd Halim.

However, the police officers remained adamant and the lawyers handed a protest note to a representative.

Contacted later, Mohd Hazam declined comment.

Met at the scene, Bar Council representative George Varughese said the council is urging for an independent inquiry on the matter.

Meanwhile, lawyer N Surendren warned that the incident would set a bad precedent resulting in more lawyers being obstructed from dispensing their duties.

“If a lawyer can be treated like (Bala), then no Malaysian citizen can be safe as lawyers would not be able to do their job,” he said.

Another lawyer R Sivarasa said that the reluctance of Mohd Hazam to meet the group showed that the police were not interested in investigating complaints against members of the force.

The media was also barred from entering the police headquarters.

• 200 lawyers protest against arrests 8 May 2009 12:00 am

  ©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
  
  

  About 200 lawyers have gathered at the lobby of the Jalan Duta court complex in Kuala Lumpur this morning to protest against the arrest of five of their colleagues late last night.
  
  The group of lawyers, growing in numbers by the minute, are waiting for their colleagues to be brought to court from the Brickfields police station where they were held along with 15 others.
  
  The five are Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Syuhaini Safwan, Puspawati Rosman, Ravinder Singh and Murnie Hidayah Anuar.
  
  
  They were arrested for alleged illegal assembly after attempting to provide legal assistance to a group of individuals who arrested for holding a candlelight vigil in support of Bersih activist Wong Chin Huat, who himself was detained under the Sedition Act.
  
  Bar Council chairperson Ragunath Kesavan, who had lodged a police report last night after being denied access to the detainees, is livid by the police action.
  
  He told reporters at the scene that the Bar will be holding an emergency general meeting (EGM) next Friday (May 15) to discuss the police actions which are deemed to be inappropriate.
  
  He said that the police should have shown respect to the lawyers who were at the police station to perform their duties.
  
  "They could have shown some kindness and civility to the lawyers," he added.
  
  In an earlier statement, Ragunath did not hold back in his criticism against the men–in–blue.
  
  “We are shocked and disgusted by this blatant transgression of the rule of law. By their action, the police personnel in question have demonstrated utter disrespect and blatant disregard for the criminal justice system that they are duty–bound to uphold and protect," he said in the statement.
  
  “They have violated the specific provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code guaranteeing access to lawyers. Although there is an exception to this provision, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be turned into a right to arrest lawyers who are waiting to render legal representation to their clients.”
  
  He said that the police action made an “absolute mockery of the constitutional right to legal representation and is a travesty of justice”.
  
  IGP asked to explain the 'gross abuse of power'
  
  Ragunath demanded police chief Musa Hassam to explain such a gross abuse of police power.
  
  “This unprecedented conduct by the police has far–reaching consequences. It means arrested persons can be denied access to their lawyers without challenge. And when their lawyers are denied access and are forced to wait outside the police station, the lawyers themselves are at risk of arrest.”
  
  He saluted the lawyers who “without regard for their own safety and well–being, voluntarily went to the aid of those arrested, only to be arrested themselves”.
  
  “They have exhibited great courage and by their actions have demonstrated the highest standards of the Malaysian Bar.  Their exemplary sense of duty and professionalism stands in stark contrast to the despicable conduct of the police.”
  
  Among those in the crowd this morning, apart from Ragunath, were senior lawyers Sulaiman Abdullah, Tommy Thomas and Ranjit Singh.
  
  It is uncertain if court cases are affected as a result of this protest.
  
  Meanwhile a slight commotion occurred during the protest when the police tried to intervene to urge the lawyers to disperse.
  
  One senior lawyer, Jagjit Singh, was especially very vocal in reproaching the police for trying to interfere and challenged them to arrest him.
  
  However cool heads prevailed and the police left the lawyers to their own.
  
  By 11.30am, the lawyers started to disperse in small groups after Ragunath told them that their five arrested colleagues will be released soon on police bail.
  
  Jagjit: We are becoming a police state
  
  Jagjit, whose legal assistant Ravinder Singh, was among those arrested last night, said he was very disappointed with the police actions.
  
  "It culminated from the spill over with the political problems in Perak which had somewhat transferred here. We are transforming into a police state with such actions," he said (photo).
  
  "Police are usurping their powers with such interferences as these young lawyers were there merely to do their jobs. Stop all these nonsense. The situation is ridiculous," he said.
  
  The senior lawyer also noted that of the five lawyers arrested, four were women. He said it was hard to understand why the police employed such tactics on females.
  
  Jagjit said he got to know that the police were still taking Ravinder's statement and would work out to secure his release.
  
  "He has been kept in there for so many hours and it is only right that police release him," he said, adding the lawyers are gathering in the court complex to show their support and disapproval.
  
  "Please do not undermine our patience as we certainly would go to the extent of risking Internal Security Act detention if it is necessary," he said.
  
  Jagjit was once arrested in the 1980s for marching to the Parliament to object the Printing Presses and Publications Act.- Malaysian Bar Website
  

Bar Council calls for Bukit Aman rally over sedition probe on lawyers

Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said that it was unacceptable for the police to record statements from four lawyers over a motion urging the Attorney-General to resign. — File pic

By BOO SU-LYN

Wednesday, 30 Mar 2016 4:33 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, March 30 — The Bar Council has called on lawyers to gather at the federal police headquarters in Bukit Aman tomorrow when four lawyers will be questioned under the Sedition Act 1948 over a Malaysian Bar motion urging the Attorney-General to resign.

Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said in a circular to members of the peninsula legal body today that it was unacceptable for the police to record statements from Malaysian Bar secretary Karen Cheah, as well as the three lawyers — Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and R. Shanmugam — who had moved the motion that was later adopted at the Malaysian Bar’s annual general meeting (AGM) on March 19 with over 700 votes.

“Members of the Bar are invited to be present at the Bar Council Secretariat and at the PDRM Headquarters in Bukit Aman, to show support for our four abovementioned Members,” Steven said in the circular sighted by Malay Mail Online, using the Malay initials for the Royal Malaysian Police.

“The action taken by PDRM is unacceptable. It is an interference with the Bar Council’s statutory obligation to convene and conduct the AGM, and the statutory entitlement of Members of the Malaysian Bar to move motions for the consideration of the Malaysian Bar, consistent with the Malaysian Bar’s objects and powers under the Legal Profession Act 1976,” he added.

The Malaysian Bar has long opposed the Sedition Act, with hundreds of lawyers staging a march in 2014 to call for the repeal of the colonial era law that they say violates freedom of speech and expression.

The contentious motion at the Malaysian Bar’s recent AGM had urged Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali to resign as Attorney-General over his handling of the cases involving state investment firm 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), former 1MDB unit SRC International, and the transfer of RM2.6 billion into the prime minister’s personal accounts.

Apandi told a press conference on January 26 that he found that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak did not commit any criminal offence in the cases of SRC International and the RM2.6 billion transfer, which he said was a donation from the Saudi royalty. - Malay Mail, 30/3/2016