Monday, February 16, 2015

Police need to take stock and clean their own backyard



Press Statement by M. Kula Segaran DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat in Ipoh on 16th February 2015

 Police need to take stock and clean their own backyard

On the instructions of Madam Leong, we filed a civil case against
Mod Taufik Peter bin Abdullah as the First Defendant, against the Police and Government of Malaysia who were named as 2nd and 3 defendant respectively. 

The case was heard for about 10-11 days and today the Ipoh Sessions Court Judge Puan Sunita Kaur Jessy gave Judgement for the Plaintiffs. 

The Plaintiffs were represented by M. Kula Segaran and Selvam Nadarajah. The First defendant who is in jail was not represented while the police were represented by Miss H.S.Huam from the AG’s Chambers.

FACTS.  

On 16.09.2009 at about 5 pm, one Chen Fun Kee was found shot and killed at his workplace at Kedai MaxGold Enterprise at 105, Jalan Sultan Iskandar, Ipoh. The main business being to buy and sell gold, mortgage pawn receipts and Rolex watches. Further the establishment was also robbed.

1.     The case was brought by the deceased wife Leong Seok Cheng the First Plaintiff (1) and his only child Chen Ming Hui, the Second Plaintiff (2). In this case, the Plaintiff had adduced evidence through the witnesses to show that the First Defendant Mohd Taufik Peter Bin Abdullah the man primarily responsible for the shooting and killing of Chen Fun Kee.

2.    The First Defendant was at all material time an officer of the Police Department with the Police and a Government Servant to Second and Third Defendant. By reason of killing, the First and Second Plaintiff suffered loss of support and damages.

3.    Presently the First Defendant has been charged for murder under 302 Penal Court and the case is pending at Ipoh High Court.

4.    It is the Contention of the Plaintiffs that the CPO (Perak) namely the Second Defendant and the Government of Malaysia the Third Defendant failed to supervise, exercise control over First Defendant and thus, who while being in the employment as a police officer using a pistol belonging to the 2nd Defendant killed Chen Fun Kee.

5.    At all material times, a police officer is primarily governed and controlled by the Police Act. He is “deemed to be always on duty when required to act as such and shall perform the duties and exercise the powers granted to him under the Act or….. Thus clearly this section spells out that a police officer is on duty 24hrs a day. And thus at all material times by implication , what ever duties he discharges is duly performed as an officer of the police force. 
Further by section 85 of the Act a police officer may in the performance of his duties carry arms

6) The deceased was killed by a police officer using arms belonging to the Police force thus implicating the Police Force and they are answerable to the family of the deceased.

A young man of only 42 years was robbed of his life and thus the continuous care and support to this family has been permanently cut off. The Federal Constitution article 5 says on FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES- Liberty of the person Article 5. (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. The Federal Constitution accords protection to all its citizens. But the innocent killing of this man has deprived his life. The police must accept responsibility.

Although the police had argued that the killing by the 1st Defendant was “a frolic of his own”, we had said by providing/according the 1st Defendant the usage of the fire arm the police had a supreme duty of care to society at large which includes the deceased. Are we going to allow the Police to wash their hands without any responsibility? They can arm a police man and he is authorized to be trigger happy?

It has to be remembered whatever compensation the family get may will not bring the deceased alive. Aggravated damages and exemplary damages must be provided to the family of the deceased. But the guilty and those responsible should be made accountable for their negligence and irresponsible acts in this case.

GROUNDS BY COURT

The court also said in her brief decision that “On the balance of probability the First defendant was on duty at the time of the incident and therefore the Second and Third Defendant is vicariously liable.”

The case has now been fixed for assessment of damages for the 13th March 2015.
This decision is a further victory for the innocent man killed by a policeman.

A message must also be sent out by this court that nobody is above the law and that includes the Police in their discharge of their duties. 


2 comments:

  1. Did the police officer rob?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I heard this man is charged under section 304b now... How is it?

    ReplyDelete