Charles Hector
User
Junior Forumer
| Posts: 173 |   |
|
In solidarity with N. Surendran... - 2008/07/11 17:09
Lawyer, N. Surendran, the lawyer of R. Kumaresan, the nephew of that now ‘infamous’ private investigator P. Balasubramaniam, has been called to the police station for investigation. He is just the lawyer of the nephew, so there is really no reason as to why the police is calling Surendran in to give a statement. This is harassment, is it not? Anyway, let us all keep an eye on matters to ensure that no wrong is done.
N Surendran just received a letter from the police requiring his presence on 12/7/2008 (Saturday) at 3pm at Tingkat 6, Blok G, Unit Siasatan Jenayah Siber & Multimedia, Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersil (Commercial Crime Investigation Department) jalan Dato Onn, 50560 Kuala Lumpur (Tel: 03-26163822). Letter dated 11/7/2008 was signed by one ASP Abdul Halid bin Hj Ludin, Pegawai Penyiasat.
The letter issued under section 111 Criminal Procedure Code states that the case being investigated is classified under section 199 Penal Code (False Statement made in any declaration which is by law receivable evidence) with regard to a false statement made in a Statutory Declaration – ref. Dang Wangi Rpt: 23402/08
Are they going to ask him about what his client/s told him? Will he be asked to (or forced to) breach that sacred solicitor-client privilege?
. A solicitor cannot be compelled to disclose
legitimate communications, whether oral or written,
passing directly between him and his client.
This privilege.
The case of Re The Detention Of Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong [1998] 1 CLJ 857, did for Malaysia possibly shrink the scope of this privilege, stating that this privilege did “…not extend to communications made in furtherance of a fraud or a criminal act….” This was also the position in England.
But in that case also, the judge did go on and say “The communications between Mr. Leonard Teoh Hooi Leong and Nor'aishah were no longer privileged as it involved a criminal investigation.” Now, does this mean that when it comes to any criminal investigations, then there will be no more privilege? I certainly hope that this is not the case. (It is sad that this decision was not appealed to Higher Courts)
For me, that English position requires the proving of the existence of that fraud or that criminal act – and I will say that it is not enough just to show that there is a suspicion, or even that there is valid grounds for believing there is…
Lawyers would rather go to jail, be tortured and/or maybe even be killed than to breach solicitor -client privilege.
To Carry Out Their Duties Freely Without Any Harassment, Hindrance Or Restraint
Lawyers, acting for their clients, must be allowed to carry out their duties freely without any harassment, hindrance or restraint by the Authorities.
The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar have also been very clear on their stand 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’. For lawyers in Malaysia, to be able ‘…to carry out their functions without fear or favour and completely free from any threats or retaliation….’ This was clearly stated by Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, in his statements dated 20/2/2000 in response to the arrest and harassment of lawyer Cheah Kah Peng at the Petaling Jaya police station.
The Malaysian Bar Resolution passed at an Emergency General meeting on a10/10/1998, which saw the attendance of over 2,400 lawyers, was clear that lawyers “…be allowed to carry out their duties freely without any harassment, hindrance or restraint by the Authorities...”
When lawyers have been prevented from carrying out their duty, or have been visited by harassment and other consequences as a result of carrying out their duties, the Malaysian Bar , the civil society and justice-loving Malaysians have been swift to express their concern and anger.
Leonard Teoh, Zainur Zakaria, Cheah Kah Peng, S.Balasubramaniam, Zulkilfy Nordin, P Uthayakumar, R Kenghadharan and V Ganabatirau are just some of the names of lawyers that have suffered by reason of their carrying out their duties as lawyers and in the struggle to uphold the cause of justice. Lawyers have always come out in support.
Today, it is lawyer N. Surendran, who is being summoned by the police – let us just be ready and monitor matters...
Some may even want to go along in solidarity to the police station.
_____
Note a report copied from the Malaysian Bar website:-
Nephew claims PI and family in danger; Syed Hamid says Bala fled due to threats
Thursday, 10 July 2008 06:43pm
• Bala's nephew makes another police report
©The Sun (Used by permission)
by Tim Leonard and Charles Ramendran
KUALA LUMPUR (July 10) : Claiming his uncle’s life is in danger overseas, R. Kumaresan, the nephew of private investigator P. Balasubramaniam today lodged a second report at the Brickfields police station.
Kumaresan, 27, accompanied by his lawyer N. Surendran, told reporters after lodging the report that his uncle had contacted him at 1am today and talked to him over the phone.
"My uncle explained several matters and told me that he fears my campaign on his behalf could jeopardise his safety and that of the whole family," said Kumaresan.
"My uncle told me not to reveal any information he told me, and urged me to stop making statements to the media.
Kumaresan said his uncle sounded very worried and could have been pressured or intimidated overseas.
"I am very concerned for his safety, especially as he is overseas and anything could happen to him and his family," he said, expressing dissatisfaction with the way the police had handled his uncle’s case.
"They (police) made a statement that my uncle has been traced overseas and yet I was not informed that he has been found despite the fact that I had lodged a police report on his disappearance on July 5," said Kumaresan.
"I feel that lodging a report was just a waste of time because the police are so unprofessional," he said.
In his report, Kumaresan also questioned why the police had made contradictory statements on his uncle's whereabouts.
"The police knew all along where my uncle was but they mislead me and the public," Kumaresan alleged.
Balasubramaniam, who was involved in the controversy over the statutory declaration (SD) about murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu, has been reported missing together with his wife and three children since last Friday.
He reportedly contacted Kumaresan on July 7.
Meanwhile, Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said today the private investigator left the country due to threats he had received following the declaration and also the publicity it had drawn to him and his family.
"Balasubramaniam was concerned of the safety of his family and himself as they have received threats and decided to head out to an undisclosed but nearby country to allow the situation here to "cool down"," he said.
"He is overwhelmed by the massive publicity and is fearful. We have to recognise his desire for privacy and concern for his safety." he said and declined to state what exactly the threats were.
He said Malaysian police are recording a statement pertaining to both the statuatory statements made by Balasubramaniam but are yet to complete the full probe to decide if there are any criminal elements committed.
The minister who spoke to the press after officiating a symposium on forensic science and criminal law at the Police Officers' College in Cheras also declined to comment on the ongoing investigations on Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who is being probed for allegedly sodomising his aide.
Later CID director Datuk Mohd Bakri Zinin told reporters police are trying to complete their investigations into the sodomy case and also on Balasubramaniam's sworn statements as quickly as they can to put an end to the rife speculations on the case.
"We have no motive or any hidden agenda in this case; We have no reason to have any. We are just trying to seek the truth as we are the police and have been tasked to probe the report. You have to believe in us. We do not want to drag ourselves into other problems." said Mohd Bakri.
He said part of the investigations into the private investigator's SD would be to look into the source of the alleged threats he received.
On whether police will provide protection for Balasubramaniam at the current location he is in, Mohd Bakri who declined to name the country, said it was not possible as the private investigator was in another country which is out of the jurisdiction of Malaysian police.
However, he said if Balasubramaniam returned to Malaysia and applied for protection for his safety, then police would provide it, if it is found to be necessary.
Asked if Balasubramaniam had legally left the country via immigration exit points or otherwise, he declined to comment except saying, "He has travel documents."
Mohd Bakri also said all those named in Balasubramaniam's SD will be called in to be interviewed by police.
On July 3, Balasubramanian, one of the witnesses in the Altantuya murder trial made shocking revelations in his first SD, alleging that Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had a relationship with Altantuya.
Less than 24 hours later on July 4, he retracted his first SD and made a second SD, claiming that the first was made under duress, before disappearing with his wife and three children.
|
Circular No 231/2010: 2nd Asia Pacific Regional Forum Conference
