MY Rights

MY Rights is an app that explains your rights when you are dealing with the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM). The app explains what you can and/or should do when you are being stopped, questioned, arrested, searched and remanded by a police officer.

Click on the link to download:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/my-rights/id424551722?mt=8

Your Right To File Police Report

Extracted from LoyarBurok

By Fahri Azzat · Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

What is hoped to be a practical explanation of what is one's right to lodge a complaint or information with the police, and in doing closely examining sections 107 and 107A of the Criminal Procedure Code by a certain chap named Fahri Azzat who has not lodged a police report recently.

Under the law, you have the right to lodge a police report. But as is common in Malaysia, the police have little respect for the law they purport to protect, defend and enforce. In the past, the police would actually dissuade you if not prohibit you from filing a police report some times. One could not get their schedule as to when those times struck and so that made it difficult and frustrating. They will tell you it's not required, or there's no point because they will not investigate, or give you excuses to send you from station to station until you get so frustrated you give up, or just flat out refuse to take down your complaint. You may have read of such experiences from the media or even experienced such instances yourself. It happens. It's true. They could however tell you to go to the Magistrate in cases involving a non-seizable offence. (Note: A seizable offence is one where the police can arrest you without a warrant; and for non-seizable offences they need a warrant. If you want to see what offences are seizable and which are not, please refer to the Third Column of the First Schedule CPC).

It got to the point that even the Executive realized this and proposed legislation to the Legislature to spell out in the clearest terms the police's duty when it came to receiving a complaint from the public. And it was passed. The recently amended provisions to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) make this manifestly clear. Our first port of call would be section 107 CPC which was heavily amended to provide in respect of receiving complaints from the public. This provision requires the police to put into writing all oral complaints received from the complainant or 'informant' into a written statement which is then verified by the complainant/informant. This complaint must be recorded in a book along with the date and time it was made. And if it is reduced to writing or there is a written statement then it must be signed by the complainant/informant.

What you should be aware of is that you can therefore prepare a statement before going to the police station - type it out on your computer, print it out. You can sign it but it's better to do that before the police officer you lodge the complaint with. It is also advisable to make a copy of all the relevant documents, media, etc. for the police if you feel it would assist in the investigation of your complaint or in verifying your information. The police must also receive your complaint even if it is not at the police station and any complaint taken outside of it shall be deemed as being received in a police station. So the police cannot tell you that they cannot take your statement because you are not at the police station. In law it is their duty to receive a complaint anywhere they receive it. If they still refuse, remind them that they are in breach as their duty as a police officer. Any complaint received outside the police station must as soon as possible must record the name and address of the informant, the date and time of the complaint and convey that information to an officer in charge of a police station (OCP) or any police officer responsible for receiving complaints. That information has to be put into writing, recorded in the

log book and signed by the complainant/informant.

Subsection (4) of the provision is why I say that the police regularly disobey the law. This is what it provides: A police officer shall be duty bound to receive any information in relation to any offence committed anywhere in Malaysia. You would not have to make such a provision if they did their job. I mean to have one's most petty job requirements to be a police has to be crystallized and realized in a statute. And if you think I'm reading too much into this then consider section 114 of the CPC which provides as follows:

No police officer or other person shall prevent or discourage any person from making in the course of a police investigation ... any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own free will.

So section 114 CPC is applicable to police officers as well (not just other citizens)! This is indicative of how widespread the refusal by the police to not receive complaints and that they, in flagrant breach of their duties, discourage citizens from lodging a police report. That is the extent of the police's recalcitrance that its own political masters saw fit to restrain and demand that they carry out their duties through a statute.

Now a lot of you also no doubt think that lodging a complaint with the police is a waste of time because nothing meaningful happens after that. I know the feeling. When my office was ransacked twice two years ago, the police just dusted the place a bit and questioned all of us instead of the neighbours. When I asked what I could expect they said that it was difficult to say because they didn't know who robbed us! Wow. Or when you lose a car and they tell you that it happens all the time and that because the thieves and syndicates are so good all they can do is assure you that your vehicle is probably half way to Thailand by then. And when you call the investigating officer they avoid your calls and never tell you the status of investigations of your complaint.

Because of this, section 107A was enacted. This provision empowers citizens and complainants regarding finding out the status of investigations regarding their complaint? This provision gives you the right to request for a report on the status of the investigation of the offence complained of' from the OCP where you made your complaint. The OCP is required to inform you the status of the report within 2 weeks of receiving the request. However this right to status has three conditions to be fulfilled. Firstly, your complaint must involve a seizable offence only. So you have no right to inquire for the status of your complaint involving non-seizable offences. Secondly, you can only inquire only after 4 weeks of your complaint being lodged. Finally, if informing you of the status would in some way 'adversely affect' the investigation into the offence or its prosecution in court. I hope that the last exception is sparingly used.

If the OCP doesn't respond within that time, you can write directly to the Attorney General's Chambers of that failure. Make sure to include the Investigating Officer's name, phone number if you have it, your police report and copies of any accompanying documents. The AG's Chambers can direct the OCP to give it a status report of the investigation of the complaint or information so far, and to either have a copy sent to you or direct the OCPD to give you a copy of the same.

There are no further provisions if the AG's Chambers fails to carry out the same, so that appears to be your last stop. In summary, where the OCP fails to revert to you in 4 weeks, you should report that failure to the AG's Chambers. Thereafter, you should direct further inquiries to the AG's Chambers in respect of your complaint/information until they inform you to do otherwise.

This entry was posted at 9:00 am.

Caution: Do Not Mess With Lawyers

Bar Council To Sue Govt Over Lawyer Detentions

15 May 09 : 7.58PM

By Deborah Loh (The Nutgraph)
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com

PETALING JAYA, 15 May 2009: The Bar Council plans to file a civil suit against the government for the unlawful detention of five lawyers on 7 May and for denying them access to detainees.

Other defendants in the suit will be Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan, and Brickfields OCPD ACP Wan Abdul Bahari Wan Abdul Khalid, Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan said today.

The civil suit was one of the action plans decided at the Bar's emergency general meeting today, called specifically to pass a motion condemning the government and police for the lawyers' arrests.

The meeting was attended by 1,428 lawyers, far exceeding the required 500 for a quorum. The motion was unanimously adopted.

The lawyers from the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre — Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Puspawati Rosman, Ravinder Singh Dhalilwal and Syuhaini Safwan — were arrested after they had gone to the Brickfields police station to meet those who had been detained for holding a candlelight vigil outside the police station. The vigil was held over the arrest of political scientist Wong Chin Huat.

The lawyers were arrested after they had asked to meet the detainees and were denied access to them by the police. They were released on police bail the next day at around 3pm.

On 8 May, some 150 lawyers had gathered at the Jalan Duta court complex to protest the arrest of their five colleagues.

Ragunath said video recordings of the arrests clearly showed that the lawyers did not participate in the vigil.

"Denying them access to detainees is a travesty of justice. There is a need for lawyers to see the accused when arrested or interrogated so that there is public accountability," he said in a press conference after the EGM.

There was a greater need for public accountability in the police as they used more physical force than any other enforcement agency, Ragunath added, noting that the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) had clear provisions on a detainee's right to see his or her lawyers.

Hishammuddin should resign

Hishammuddin Hussein (Pic courtesy
of theSun)

The Bar Council also called for Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, as well as IGP Musa, to resign over the incident.

Ragunath took Hishammuddin to task for his remarks that lawyers should not think they were above the law. Ragunath said that police were also not above the law.

"For Hishammuddin to say that lawyers are not above the law is not a reply, is not a solution, is not what we want to hear. We (the Bar Council) had asked for an apology over the arrests, and he gave that response without even investigating what happened," Ragunath said.

He said while Section 28 of the CPC detailed the circumstances whereby police were allowed to prevent lawyers from meeting detainees, none of those conditions could be logically applied to the lawyers who had gone to the Brickfields police station.

The conditions are if police suspect an accomplice is involved, or if concealment, destruction or fabrication of evidence could result, or if there is intimidation of witnesses.

"I cannot see what or how these reasons apply for denying access to lawyers," Ragunath said.

Going all out

In addition to the civil suit, the Bar Council also intends to seek a meeting with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak over the matter, lodge a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to request an inquiry, and seek the intervention of the Chief Justice.

In the EGM motion condemning the government and police for the lawyers' arrest, the Bar Council noted that the lawyers were made to wear lock-up uniforms and were unnecessarily handcuffed.

The motion also denounced the police for deliberately refusing to give family members and the lawyers of those arrested any information about their arrest and the police's next course of action.

Calling the incident a "gross abuse of police powers", the Bar is demanding an unconditional apology from the government to the lawyers.

Lawyers should be allowed to discharge their responsibilities to their clients without threat or intimidation, it added.

The Bar also reiterated its call for the government to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).