(Then IGP) Rahim Noor Cutodial Torture - Anwar's Black Eye - sentenced to mere 2 months in prison, RM2,000 fine? Higher sentence for CRIMES committed by law enforcement

Inadequacy of the Malaysian law when law enforcement torture persons in custody became apparent in the infamous case of Anwar Ibrahim's Black Eye, where the TORTURE was committed by the highest ranking police officer of the land, then Inspector General of Police, Rahim Noor.

He was ONLY charged for Voluntarily Causing Hurt - where the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand ringgit or with both. This is the CRIME applicable to anyone who commits the crime.

 

 

323  Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt(Penal Code)

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand ringgit or with both. 

Well, honestly, when a person is hurt or 'TORTURED' by a member of law enforcement - the penalty should be very much higher. because we expect law enforcement officers to uphold the law - and certainly NOT break the law and torture any detainee.

But then, Malaysia still does not have SPECIFIC Criminal Offenses for law enforcement officers torture suspects/witnesses and others, rape/sexually assault them in custody  or even cause the death/serious injury.

Well, IGP Rahim Noor was MERELY SENTENCED by the Sessions Court to 2 MONTHS PRISON and fine of RM2,000

Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment and a fine of RM2000 in default two months' imprisonment.

Then, on appeal, the High Court reduced his sentence - 2 months jail but no fine.

The learned judge dismissed the appeal against the two months' custodial sentence but allowed the appeal against the fine and quashed it. 

Then on 2nd appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the original sentence of 2 months jail, and fine of RM2,000

We dismiss the appeal and restore the Sessions Court's sentence of two months imprisonment and a fine of RM2,000 in default two months. 

Did not see any reports that he went to jail or was released after serving his sentence.

In any event, there MUST be specific offenses for LAW ENFORCEMENT and police, which provide for a MUCH higher sentence.

Now, in the Penal Code, section 325 Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt -Whoever, except in the case provided by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Well, would not it be better if the penalty was higher like this?

Now, look at 326A  Punishment for causing hurt to spouse, former spouse, etc.

(1) Whoever causes hurt to his spouse or former spouse, a child, an incapacitated adult or other member of the family and commits an offence under section 323, 324, 325, 326, 334 or 335 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twice of the maximum term for which he would have been liable on conviction for that offence under the relevant section notwithstanding any other punishment provided for that offence.

What DOUBLE if the victim was a spouse?

Well, could it not be TRIPLE if the perpetrator was a Police Officer or law enforcement officer?

Why was the CRIMINAL ex-IGP sentenced only to 2 months imprisonment? Noting that a plea of guilt is a Mitigating Factor that reduces the prison term by one third - then, he should have been sentenced to at least 8 months imprisonment.

In such offence, his being the IGP and his service should not be MITIGATING factors - rather AGGRAVATING FACTORS.

I recall the sentiments expressed by the Court of Appeal in this case

We would, however, like to take this opportunity to remind the lower courts that they should take cases of police officers assaulting anyone very seriously. When a police officer, be he of whatever rank, is found guilty of assaulting a member of the public and more so of an arrested person as in this case, the courts should send a message of the public abhorrence of such acts - by coming down hard on him and nothing short of a custodial sentence, even for a first offender, would suffice.

I wish to note that is a LACUNA with regard to Criminal Offences committed by the police and law enforcement. For example, the law states what the police should and can do when arresting someone or during body-search, and investigating - BUT there is a lacking of Criminal Offence(Plus Sentence) when the police officers 'breaks the law' during arrest, during investigations.  SOPs(Standard Operating Procedures) or Guidelines are insufficient, more so a non-compliance is STILL not a crime with deterrent sentences. We need clear laws - with clear offences, with deterrent sentences to send a message of the public abhorrence of such acts.

 

TAN SRI ABDUL RAHIM MOHD NOOR v. PP
COURT OF APPEAL, KUALA LUMPUR
SHAIK DAUD ISMAIL, JCA;   MOHD SAARI YUSOFF, JCA;   K C VOHRAH, JCA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: W-09-32-2000
22 MAY 2001

[2001] 4 CLJ 9

JUDGMENT Shaik Daud Ismail JCA: This may appear to be a run of the mill case of voluntary causing hurt but it attracted the widest worldwide publicity that any other such like case could not possibly do. It can be said that this case created history in Malaysia as it shook the nation to the very core. The appellant, the Inspector General of Police was originally charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on 22 April 1999 for an offence of attempting to cause grievous hurt to the former Deputy Prime Minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim while he was under police custody in the lock-up at the Police Headquarters in Bukit Aman Kuala Lumpur on the night of 20 September 1998. It was fixed for hearing on 20 September 1999 exactly one year after the incident. After a number of postponements all at the instance of the appellant, the case was finally fixed for hearing on 14 March 2000. On that day the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor tendered an amended charge under s. 323 of the Penal Code, an offence of voluntary causing hurt. The appellant immediately pleaded guilty and after the facts were given and admitted to by the appellant and after hearing the mitigating submission, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment and a fine of RM2000 in default two months' imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the whole of the sentence to the High Court while the Public Prosecutor cross-appealed against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The appeal finally came up for hearing in the High Court Kuala Lumpur on 10 November, 2000 ie, over two years after the incident. The learned judge dismissed the appeal against the two months' custodial sentence but allowed the appeal against the fine and quashed it. The Public Prosecutor's cross-appeal was dismissed. At the hearing of the appeal against the two months' custodial sentence, the two learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the custodial sentence was excessive and urged upon us to impose a fine instead on the ground that the custodial sentence is unsuitable on the proved facts. They also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had failed to adequately consider the salient aspects of the case, like the antecedents and contributions to the nation of the appellant. They added that the arrest and conviction taken together were sufficient humiliation to the appellant and that he had unreservedly apologised to Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his family. The learned counsel also cited a number of authorities for offences under s. 323 of the Penal Code where upon conviction the court had imposed fines or binding over orders. The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor in his submission urged upon us not to disturb the custodial sentence as the learned Sessions Judge had made the right consideration and had applied correct principles of sentencing, and that the Public Prosecutor was satisfied with the High Court judge's sentence. The facts of the case as admitted by the appellant showed that on the night of 20 September 1998, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim was arrested and taken to the police headquarters at Bukit Aman and placed in the lock-up at the ground floor. At about 10.45pm the appellant came down from his 30th floor office to the lock-up and ordered his men through hand signals to blindfold Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim and to handcuff him with his hands behind his back. The appellant then entered the lock-up and rained blows on Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim who screamed with pain. His screams were heard by two senior officers who were close by and they intervened to stop any further assault by the appellant by pulling him away from Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Four medical reports were tendered by the prosecution on the extensive injuries sustained by Dato' Seri Anwar, including the infamous black-eye. The learned Sessions Judge considered all aspects of the case including the appellant's contributions to the nation, his long service in the police force and his clean record and also a number of authorities on the principles of sentencing before he imposed the sentence in question. It cannot be gainsaid that the most onerous function of any court is to decide the appropriate sentence in any criminal case. In deciding the appropriate sentence a court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. In that context the interest of justice should no doubt take into account the interest of the offender. But it is often forgotten that the interest of justice must also include the interest of the community. In assessing sentence the court should balance the interest of the offender with the interest of the victim and strike a balance, not, of course forgetting that the interest of the public should be of the uppermost consideration. The appellant at the time of the offence held the highest office in the police force and therefore should have been a role model to the force. Instead he stooped to the lowest level when he acted as he did. His actions towards an arrested person is despicable and inhuman, to say the least, more so in this case when the arrested person was, on his orders, blindfolded with his hands handcuffed behind his back. We cannot fathom the need to blindfold and handcuff a prisoner who was already in the police lock-up. This, to us, is an indication of the deliberate nature of the assault on a defenceless victim. This is the worst act of indiscipline in a disciplined force. We have gone through the record of appeal thoroughly and considered the submissions of learned counsel and the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor. It is not true to say that the learned Sessions Judge had failed to consider certain aspects of the case. The records show that he did consider every aspect of the case including all mitigating factors put forth, and also the appellant's long service to the nation. In the circumstances of this case we can find nothing to interfere with the sentencing discretion of the Sessions Judge. By the same token we are of the view that the High Court too, ought not to have interfered with this discretion. In quashing the imposition of the fine, the learned judge of the High Court had said that he did this because the learned Sessions Judge did not give reasons for imposing the fine. Merely because he did not give specific reasons for imposing the fine, it is our view that this alone is no reason to quash it. The overall reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge encompass the whole of the sentence. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we think that the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is on the lenient side. For reasons best known to him, of which we cannot comprehend, the Public Prosecutor then chose not to cross-appeal on sentence to this court. We say we cannot comprehend because when the Sessions Court imposed the sentence, the Public Prosecutor thought it fit to cross-appeal on sentence to the High Court. The Public Prosecutor's petition of appeal showed how unhappy he was with what was termed as gross inadequacy of the sentence and that he had urged upon the court to enhance the sentence. When the High Court, however, reduced that sentence by quashing the imposition of the fine, the Public Prosecutor chose not to cross-appeal in respect of the inadequacy of sentence. We find it rather strange that when the sentence was higher it was thought to be grossly inadequate but when it was reduced, it was deemed to be adequate. We are mindful of the fact that the law and the Constitution give absolute power to the Public Prosecutor to appeal or not, whether to charge a person or not and with what charge and such powers are to be exercised at his discretion but we are reminded that the community expect him to exercise it fairly, honestly and professionally (see PP v. Zainuddin & Anor[1986] 1 CLJ 468; [1986] CLJ 232 (Rep); [1986] 2 MLJ 100 at 103). Be that as it may it is, however, not the practice of an appellate court to impose its own sentence over that of the trial court especially when the Public Prosecutor chooses not to appeal. We would, however, like to take this opportunity to remind the lower courts that they should take cases of police officers assaulting anyone very seriously. When a police officer, be he of whatever rank, is found guilty of assaulting a member of the public and more so of an arrested person as in this case, the courts should send a message of the public abhorrence of such acts - by coming down hard on him and nothing short of a custodial sentence, even for a first offender, would suffice. As mentioned earlier we find nothing wrong in law with the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. We dismiss the appeal and restore the Sessions Court's sentence of two months imprisonment and a fine of RM2,000 in default two months. The custodial sentence shall begin from today 30 April 2001.

Former IGP sentenced to two months' jail R. Mageswari Published:  Apr 18, 2001 4:16 AM ⋅ Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM Malaysia's former police chief Abdul Rahim Noor today was sentenced to a two-month prison term and fined RM2,000 for assaulting sacked deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim while he was in police custody on Sept 20, 1998. Rahim, however, walked free when Sessions Court judge Akhtar Tahir allowed a stay of execution pending an appeal by Rahim against his sentence and allowed a bail of RM5,000 in one surety. Appearing calm throughout the proceedings, an immaculately dressed Rahim promptly posted bail and left before reporters could approach him for an interview. Rahim's counsel K.Kumaraendran filed a notice of appeal to the High Court this morning and said the defence is appealing "on the ground that the sentence does not commensurate with the service he (Rahim) has rendered to the nation and society". Prosecuting officer Salehuddin Saidin, however, said he would have to refer to the Attorney-General Mohtar Abdullah before deciding whether to appeal against the sentence. ADS "We have to refer to our superior officer (Mohtar) in deciding whether to appeal or not," Salehuddin said. In passing the sentence, Akhtar said "the court cannot disregard the grave injuries sustained by Anwar". Anwar, after his arrest, appeared in court with a black eye and said he was beaten while in police custody. A doctor, testifying at the Royal Commission of Enquiry that was set up to investigate Anwar's allegations, said the blows to the head were "potentially lethal". ADS Describing the assault as "cruel", Akhtar said he "cannot deny the fact that, if not for the Royal Commission, the cruel act (by Rahim) would not have been known". "The accused, being the police chief, should have acted reasonably even amidst the political tension in the country," Akhtar said. In the mitigation plea for a minimal sentence, Kumaraendran yesterday told the court that Rahim was under immense pressure because of the massive demonstrations in downtown Kuala Lumpur staged by Anwar's supporters. Akhtar said the sentence imposed on the ex-chief would be a "lesson to other police officers and the public". The prosecution, meanwhile, submitted that the court should impose a jail sentence on Rahim as the offence committed by the former police chief is considered "very serious". Deputy Public Prosecutor Sallehuddin Saidin pointed out that Anwar, handcuffed and blindfolded, was defenceless when he was assaulted by Rahim. "If this court fails to impose the sentence, it will further erode public confidence on the country's judicial system," Sallehuddin told the court. In a country where the police enjoy absolute power, this is the first time a former Inspector-General of Police was charged and convicted in a criminal court. Anwar is currently serving a six-year jail term for corruption and stands trial for sodomy and sexual misconduct. The former finance minister has repeatedly denied all charges and says they were orchestrated by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's aides to topple him from power.