The Malaysian Bar - Who to call in times of trouble

Home

News

Members' Opinions and Comments

Who to call in times of trouble

Tuesday, 23 August 2011 08:50am

©The Star (Used by permission)
ARTICLES OF LAW By BHAG SINGH

The police have the power to detain a person. However, this must be in the interest of all parties and for a proper purpose.

THE public places much faith and hope in the police. The police, too, from time to time, remind the public that they are the friends of the public. So if there is any kind of trouble or likely to be trouble, the immediate thought is to call the police.

In times gone by, the well-known number for help was, and I believe still is, 999. It is a number that is so easy to remember.

However, it is for all emergencies and not the police alone. In Kuala Lumpur and I suppose elsewhere, there is also a better and faster way to reach the police. This is to contact the number that will link you to the Unit Peronda. It is very useful for every individual to keep the number within reach. In the absence of other ways of getting the number, one should get it from the local police station.

But sometimes a call for help can turn out to have the opposite effect. This is what happened in the case of an individual in the south of the country, according to a news report. The claim is that he dialled 999 in the hope that the police would help him, but ended up being detained for four days instead.

This individual said that he had initially called the police to take action against his neighbour who was breaking his back door and urging him to come out and fight.

The man and his neighbour have been feuding for a long time. On the day in question, he called the police because he was afraid that things would get out of hand. He thought this would ensure his safety.

He said he dialled 999 five times and two hours later – at about 9pm – police officers came to his house and escorted him to the police station, claiming that they wanted to take his statement on the incident.

Police lock-up

However, he said that once he reached the police station, he was handcuffed and kept in the police lock-up for four days. During this period, he was not allowed to call anyone.

He said the police refused to divulge the reason for his arrest. On the fifth day, he was brought to the court and charged with assaulting his neighbour. He was released after his son posted bail.

In the news report, a senior police officer said the man was arrested after his neighbour’s wife alleged that he had assaulted her and hurt her shoulder.

There are two components or aspects to the grievance felt by the complainant. One is that he was not allowed to call anyone. This is contrary to the rights of a person who is detained in most cases.

The police may have an answer to this allegation which could throw some light on the matter. But even if he was indeed not allowed to make any call for any justifiable reason, it would at most be a breach on the part of the police for which any consequences of significance are unlikely.

The other question that arises is whether in the circumstances, it is right to detain a person for the number of days in question. A person’s freedom can be restricted by a jail term imposed by the court or detention pending investigation where this is necessary.

Otherwise, to detain a person for any length of time where it is done just for the sake of detaining is in a way imposing punishment on the person concerned before he has been tried and convicted.

Therefore when there is a family feud over which there have been nearly 50 reports and an alleged assault in the context of the feud between neighbours, it would likely be known to the police who the parties and witnesses are. The fact as to whether there is an assault would, in the absence of special circumstances, be easily established.

So why is there a need to detain a party concerned in such an assault? The purpose of detaining a person for any length of time or period is to facilitate investigations.

This is especially so if the persons detained could interfere with witnesses who will be interviewed. Otherwise it would be better to let the person out on police bail.

Of course, the police have powers to detain a person and beyond the permitted period, to get a court order. In the later case, it becomes a decision of the court. But in all cases, there is discretion involved and such discretion must be exercised in a proper manner.

To the court

Of course, in the case above, the matter has gone to the court. It is no longer completely in the hands of the police.

There is no situation in which perfect justice can be served. This is because justice is sought to be achieved through the creation of laws as administered by the court. In situations where people are able to exploit it contrary to its true objective, justice may not be done.

Our entire legal system is based on the adversarial system where two or more parties which are involved in a dispute can fight it out. Physical strength is not the deciding factor. It is the weight of evidence that usually determines the outcome.

The law of evidence which underlies and governs a trial is premised on the basis that everyone who appears in court as a witness will tell the truth. Where this premise fails to hold and no evidence can be put forward to contradict the false evidence, justice may not be done.

Having said this, the police, when they act, must have reasons for what they do. Therefore the truth or otherwise of allegations of being dissatisfied with any action taken can only be established if the matter is fully dealt with and pursued to the end.

Of course, the police are to be commended for such prompt action. However, there are cases in which one person has been assaulted by another, but the investigating officer does not bother to take proper statements from the person assaulted or is reluctant to do so.

Hence there may be more than meets the eye.

Set as favourite

Email This