KUALA LUMPUR, July 28 (Bernama) — The inquest into the death of Teoh Beng Hock, the political secretary of a Selangor state executive councillor, will begin tomorrow in the Shah Alam magistrate’s court to determine the cause of death.

Teoh, 30, political aide of Selangor State Executive Councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16 on the fifth floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.

He had been questioned as a witness by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) between 5pm on July 15 and 3.45am the following day on the allegations of misuse of Selangor state government allocations, at the MACC office located on the 14th floor of the same building.

Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, for Teoh’s family, when contacted by Bernama said he would make an appliction to get several documents including the post-mortem report before the inquest proceedings begin.

Statements from 77 people questioned will be the focus. Azmil Muntapha Abas is expected to act as coroner.

Among those expected to be called are 28 MACC officers, chemists and pathologists and several of Teoh’s close friends.

On July 22, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced that an inquest headed by a magistrate would be held into Teoh’s death.

Besides Gobind, Teoh’s family is also represented by lawyer Karpal Singh, while lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar would be an observer for the Selangor state government.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers is still keeping mum on who would handle the case but it is believed that it will be an experienced Deputy Public Prosecutor.

Observation by Bernama at Shah Alam Magistrate Court 5 found that several workers were busy installing three screens to display the proceedings for the duration of the inquest.

Media persons are expected to be at the court as early as 6am to get seats in the public gallery as the court can only hold 60 persons.

 

The Attorney General should push for the inquest into the death of Teoh Beng Hock to be deferred.

 

It was revealed by the Selangor police chief just a while ago that police investigations into the case are ‘more or less complete’. It was also revealed that some reports such as the pathologist report have yet to be received by the police.

 

In addition to this, I have been informed that the police are only now asking certain individuals to produce DNA samples to assist in investigations. One would assume this is to connect those persons to the body of Teoh Beng Hock, which no doubt will have a huge impact on the case.

 

The Attorney General should not press for the inquest to proceed when these essential aspects of the investigations are yet to be completed. In fact, an inquest should only be held after the police have completed their investigations and where those investigations cannot by themselves find a cause of death.. This is because the Attorney General should first consider the findings of the police investigations before deciding whether or not an inquest is required. Here, it appears, the investigations have not even been completed yet.

 

I will be raising these matters in court tomorrow. Applications will also be made for documents. A deferment for a short while will benefit all parties to the inquest in that there would be time for the exchange of documents and very importantly, the family of Teoh Beng Hock would also be able to seek second opinions from experts on the various reports such as the post mortem, forensic and DNA report which would be of most importance to the inquest.

 

We propose to give the Magistrate and DPP assisting, the fullest of cooperation and assistance during the inquest. The outcome of the inquest is most important to all Malaysians and as such I am of the view that it ought not be rushed through as apparently is the case at present.

 

 

28 July 2009

 

 

GOBIND SINGH DEO

DAP National Legal Bureau Chairman

DAP MALAYSIA.  

By Rahmah Ghazali, Malaysiakini

The tragic yet controversial death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock has prompted the government to set up a royal commission of inquiry.

For suspended Puchong parliamentarian Gobind Singh-Deo (below), the government should also not forget the death of 23-yer-old A Kugan, who died under police watch.

According to the practicing lawyer, the government should call for a royal commission of inquiry to determine interrogation techniques used by the police against Kugan.

“We have to remember that Kugan was also a victim of assault and we need to find out the type of interrogation techniques used in the police station.

“If the (techniques) are unlawful, recommendations (by royal commission) should be made to avoid similar tragedies in police custody,” he said.

Second post mortem

Unlike Teoh who had died under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) watch, Kugan died five days after he was detained in connection with several car theft cases at the Taipan police station in USJ.

Following this, family wanted a second post-mortem after being dissatisfied with the first one carried out at the Serdang Hospital which concluded that Kugan died of liquid in his lungs.

However, a video of the remains taken at the Serdang Hospital mortuary revealed severe bruises on the body, leading many quarters to accuse the police of foul play.

Following a massive public outcry, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail (left) reclassified the case as murder and investigations were underway.

One day after the AG made the announcement, 11 constables and lance corporals from the Subang Taipan police station, where Kugan had collapsed and died, were removed and put on desk duty pending investigations.

‘Family still in the dark’

“But up until now, there is absolutely nothing going on in Kugan’s case as no one has been charged…those responsible are walking about freely,” said Gobind.

Gobind also urged Selangor police chief Khalid Abu Bakar (below) to immediately reveal the techniques of interrogation used against Kugan when he was being held.

“He should tell us whether such techniques are routinely used by the police on prisoners and suspects,” he said.

Gobind also said that Kugan’s family is “still in the dark” as to why no one has gone through the case.

“They also have no idea if action has been taken against the cops involved.

We all have an equal concern in Kugan’s as well as Teoh’s case because it involves one more custodial death in the country,” said Gobind.

A Magistrate is empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code to hold an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of a person.

 

Commonly seen to address deaths in police custody, or suspicious deaths, the task of a Magistrate would be to hold a public hearing where witnesses from whom statements have been taken by the police will be called and openly questioned.

 

Those with a direct interest in the outcome of these proceedings, such as victims or suspects, may engage lawyers who may appear and question these witnesses as well during the proceedings.

 

One thing is certain. A magistrate has wide powers but only in so far as finding the circumstances leading to and the causes of death in that particular case are concerned.

 

A magistrate may not go the extra distance to inquire into the propriety of the investigative procedures adopted on the deceased, as in the case of Teoh.

 

A Royal Commission of Inquiry on the other hand may be asked to inquire into both. This means the RCI may look into the circumstances leading to and the causes of death of a person in custody and also the sufficiency or otherwise of measures existing to protect the rights of individuals who are detained for questioning.

 

What comes across as strange in the decision of the cabinet is the separation of the two. If the cabinet did not feel it fit to set up a RCI, then one would fall back on an inquest. But where the cabinet decides to set up a RCI, then what is the logic behind separating the two?

 

Not only would there be two separate hearings held, which will involve twice the time and cost, there could be a serious problem if the findings of both were different. That would result in an absurd and highly embarrassing position for the government.

 

Having said that, how is the RCI going to focus on the events which led to the death of Teoh? Are they to rely on the findings of the Inquest or are they to reevaluate the whole case and if they are required to rely on the findings of the Magistrate, then what real purpose is there for the RCI if it cannot inquire and judge for itself the real facts of the case?

 

It is also to be remembered that an inquest usually depends heavily on witnesses from whom the police have taken statements whereas a RCI has the power to call and question almost anyone they feel are relevant for the purpose of uncovering the whole truth in cases such as these.

 

Take for example the Rahim Nor ‘Black Eye” RCI. That was a case where the top police officer of the country was found to be responsible and as such, the setting up of a RCI consisting of members who were ex- judges and medical experts went a long long way in reassuring Malaysians of their impartiality.

 

Further, it is to be remembered that a RCI presents its findings and recommendations to the King.

 

In the case of a Magistrate, the findings are channeled to the Attorney-General. Arguably, the AG could maintain his impartiality in the matter, but where the death came around in an investigation involving a prosecuting agency such as the MACC, there would be perception problems as surely the AG ought not to decide on a matter where his men are allegedly involved.

 

I am surprised how it is the cabinet has decided to hold both an Inquest and a RCI. It really does not make much sense. It reflects a lack of will on part of the government to set up an inquisitorial process which is truly independent to unearth the dark facts behind the death of Teoh Beng Hock.

 

 

22 July 2009

 

GOBIND SINGH DEO

MP for PUCHONG

 

There are two ways in which a public inquiry may be held over the circumstances leading to the death of Teoh Beng Hock.

 

As already suggested, the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry would go a long way in finding ways and means by which incidents like these are no more in future. Its terms and reference should be cast wide. It should look into things like the interrogation techniques used, the time and conditions under which a person may be interrogated.

 

Second, we should be looking the places where interrogations take place. There should be CCTV camera’s placed there and the footage of these recordings must be made available to those interrogated upon request.

 

 I have done a case in which a restaurant owner was taken to a police station in Johor where he was beaten whilst tied up and then he was hung upside down from an iron bar, his pants removed and chemical liquid poured onto his private parts in the course of interrogations. The defendants denied it. We won the case. The prosecution did not appeal. A video would have helped indeed.

 

I am currently doing a case in which a young girl was allegedly raped in an interrogation room in a police station early one morning by a policeman in uniform. Again the defendant denies it. He claims it was consensual. A 17 year old girl. In a police station. At 5am. Consensual. A video would help.

 

And of course, we have the case of A.Kugan where a suspect was beaten to death in police custody. Gani Patail is not very sure of what to do. A video would help him.

 

These are just a few examples. There are other horror stories of hot water treatments in police stations, threats of death and so on. Well, that for another time.

 

Third, we should be looking at the rights of families where a death occurs. In Kugan’s  case it is quite clear that but for the family’s barging into the mortuary and taking photographs and video’s of Kugan, no one would have realized the severity of the beatings which reflected as bruises and marks all over his body.

 

Likewise in Teoh’s case, a request to look at the body at the scene by lawyers was denied. We know the scene of the crime must be preserved for the best forensic results. But we can surely have rules for the family and their lawyers or experts to view the body from a distance so as to decide whether or not they want to have a second opinion.

 

Further, I feel it is very important for the law to demand that forensic personnel be compelled to speak to the family of the deceased at the scene after they have completed their investigations before removing the body. They should inform the family of their preliminary findings. This is never done. The families are left in a lurch as to what is the cause of death and they have no way to actually decide whether a second opinion is needed. It’s quite simple. How do you ask for a second opinion if you don’t know what the first one is? 

 

Third, the law must make it a point to distinguish between ordinary deaths and deaths in custody. Where a death occurs in custody, then the police or the other investigating body becomes suspect. The law must give the family the option to have a second autopsy after they are appraised of the findings of the first. If they are satisfied with the initial report there is no need to go further, but if they are not, they have a right to a second opinion.

 

The other point is this. The family should be permitted to get any government or private pathologist to help them. It Teoh’s case, the family was asked to get a pathologist at the very last minute. This made it very difficult and we were only able to secure help from Thailand. And in Kugan’s case, we were given the runaround by the police up to a point that demonstrations needed to be held.and ultimately, we got Dr Prashant to help. Now, the AG has roped him into the prosecution team as well.

 

And, whilst on this topic, we should make sure that if the family opts for a government pathologist, then the state should bear the costs of the second autopsy. In Kugan’s case, we collected donations to foot the bill of RM3000.

 

There is also the question of formulating laws which protect the police or other officials in investigations of this nature. Ordinarily a lot of speculation and theories are channeled against them but we must understand that that is because of the problems I have spoken about above. Given the way in which the family and public are left in the dark about these very sensitive and important details, temperatures would indeed be expected to rise.

 

Quite apart from a Royal Commission of Inquiry, the law provides for inquests to be held in cases of sudden death. Take the Sujatha inquest as an example. Here a Magistrate will hear all witnesses in public before coming to recommendations as to the possible causes of death and also if anyone is to be held responsible. The terms of reference are narrower in that the Magistrate sits to merely ascertain the cause of death and proposed suspects. It does not go further in terms of what is discussed above, which a Royal Commission of Inquiry can look into.

 

I have advised Teoh’s family to call for both. A royal commission of Inquiry would be broader in its terms of its reference. It would look at the cause of death and more importantly the circumstances surrounding interrogations and the rights of suspects and their families. If a Royal Commission of Inquiry is not set up then we would ask for an inquest to be held.

 

July 19, 2009

 

GOBIND SINGH DEO

MP for PUCHONG  

 Many months ago A.Kugan was beaten to his death in police custody. Think about it. Bruises and marks showing he was beaten. He was in a police lock-up or station. There is no dispute about the fact that it was the police who were responsible. We waited for the results of the post-mortem report. We got it. We were not happy with it. We were not happy with it because our eyes didn’t lie to us. We know what we saw. To us it was murder. So we went to the funeral and brought the coffin back to UMMC. We wanted a second opinion.
 
Whilst all of this was happening, the police let out theories of how it is the first postmortem seemed to exculpate them. It wasn’t murder, according to them. Nobody was arrested. Until today, no one has been charged. Gani Patail is the Attorney General of Malaysia. He decides who is to be charged and for what. Well, that’s usually the case. If I remember correctly, he said one day that A.Kugan’s case should be classified as murder. This was during Pak Lah’s time.

Then we went to see a good person by the name of Dr Prashant in UMMC. We told him we wanted a second post-mortem done on A.Kugan. He agreed and we got on with it. His examination confirmed what we (all Malaysians, except those investigating) could already see and already knew. It was surely murder.

Then Gani Patail said he had a problem. Now there were two reports. He didn’t know what to do. So he commenced investigations on the reports. These investigations are still pending and those who brought Kugan to his death are still walking around freely.

I am impressed.

I now know that the best way to buy a few months or years of time for my clients who are accused of murder is to get a second post-mortem report. Once this is done, Gani Patail will have a problem and he will investigate the reports. In the meanwhile, the accused can go free. They can even leave the country if they want. No problem.
 
Some intelligent people have told me that the purpose of the investigation into Dr Prashant’s report is to see if it is correct. Of course, whilst investigations are pending, some high officers of the health ministry have already said his report is not quite right. Gani Patail is still waiting for the official results. The suspects, meanwhile can remain free. But the problem is really this. Whilst all this is happening, another body is found outside the office of the MACC. Again, a public outcry. Again a demand for justice. The police are investigating.

I was at the scene of the crime yesterday. I was told the police had their best team working on the case. The government also says this. Gani Patail also has this at the top of his mind. Justice. And then, guess what? I manage to see the team of forensic pathologists who are working on the case. And there is Dr Prashant. I am impressed. I say hello and of course, the usual hand shakes. I have faith in him.

But hold on a second. Isn’t this the same man the prosecution is having a headache with in respect of Kugan’s case? Is it not the case that Gani Patail has issues with his report in that case and thus the inquiries etc?

So whats going on Gani Patail? Do you trust Dr Prashant or not? If you do why are you wasting time dragging the Kugan case and if you don’t, why is he on the case of Teoh Beng Hock? Mine is a simple conclusion. Gani Patail has faith in Dr Prashant. Well done, Gani Patail! So, how long more are A.Kugan’s parents to wait before any policeman is to be charged for causing their son’s death. Actually, since we are already talking about it, and we know Gani Patail has faith in Dr Prashant, why really is the Kugan case being delayed?

17 July 2009

GOBIND SINGH DEO
 MP for Puchong

WHO COMPLAINED?

 

The MACC should tell us who the complainants are in respect of the investigations against the Selangor Pakatan Assemblymen.

 

It is certainly strange that all of a sudden the MACC is investigating not one or two but 12 Pakatan Assemblymen in one go. Was there a general blanket report which was made which covers all Pakatan leaders only? How else would the MACC explain the position?

 

The MACC exists to combat corruption. It is a public body and it must be accountable to the public. There have been numerous reports made against certain BN leaders but we don’t see any enthusiasm on part of the MACC to bring these people to book.

 

The MACC must not and cannot abuse its power. It cannot launch blanket investigations against groups of people. As I understand it, as is the case in other criminal investigations, a report must be lodged before investigations may commence. But reports are almost always directed at certain factual patterns implicating certain individuals they cannot be general reports ‘just so that MACC officials may knock on anyone’s door to check’.

 

The DAP will through its National Legal Bureau write to the MACC for a copy of the report lodged. We will investigate the bona fides of this ‘investigation’. If there is any wrong revealed, we will not hesitate to sue to put things right.

 

 

16 July 2009

 

GOBIND SINGH DEO

MP for PUCHONG

By Deborah Loh
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com