What happens after someone dies in a PDRM lock-up?

On the 12^th of May 2019 Gopal Krishnan Rajalinggam was arrested by the police for a suspected drug offence. He was detained in a Kedah prison for about 2 months while he was waiting for his court dates. Unfortunately, on the 24^th of July, his family found him wounded and unconscious in a hospital where he died several days later.

We may have come across similar stories in the news before, and these reports seem to follow the same tune – the PDRM gives an official statement regarding the death and the news would report about the reaction of the deceased’s family. What we don’t usually see in the news is what happens after all that, because the law looks at such matters very seriously and certain procedures must be followed. So under our Criminal Procedure Code, if someone dies in the custody of the authorities, it must be immediately reported to a Magistrate’s court judge. And once that’s done...

A Magistrate’s court judge decides whether to have a death inquiry

While it may be common to think that it is the PDRM who investigate deaths, things are a little different if someone dies in a detention centre like a lock-up. When that happens, the first thing the PDRM must do in such a situation is inform the nearest Magistrate (which is a term used to call a judge who sits in a Magistrate’s Court). According to Section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the law (in part) says that:

So once a Magistrate receives the information about the death in lock-up, he would have to decide whether or not he would have an inquiry regarding the death. (what is an inquiry) And if he chooses to have an inquiry, the next step is to decide whether to have a doctor examine the deceased’s body. Usually only after that’s done, the Magistrate can proceed to conduct his inquiry which could involve examining witnesses among other things.

Next, the Magistrate must determine the circumstances that caused the death

So the purpose of an inquiry isn’t just to determine the cause of death, but the circumstances that caused the cause of death. While a doctor who examines a body may say “the deceased died due to a blunt force trauma to the head”, a Magistrate would ask “what are the circumstances that caused the blunt force trauma to the head”.

To get to that answer, the Magistrate is required to ask certain questions according to statutes and cases. To make it simple we’d use the Inquest into the Death of Chandran Perumal, where the Magistrate inquired into the death of Chandran who died in a lock-up. (repetition) (what happened to him, add context) The Magistrate said that there are 5 questions to be asked when there’s a death inquiry:

1. When did the deceased die?
2. Where did the deceased die?
3. How did the deceased die?
4. In what way did the deceased die?
5. Is anyone criminally responsible for the deceased’s death?

Once the Magistrate has gotten the answers to these 5 questions in his inquiry, he can then come up with a decision. Just like a trial when someone is charged with an offence, the judge has to decide whether to ‘convict’ or ‘acquit’ – in an inquest the Magistrate has the option of coming up with 1 of 3 types of decisions. These 3 decisions was laid out in the case of Teoh Beng Kee v PP, which concerned the death of Teoh Beng Hock who died in premises of the MACC while he was there for questioning. The case said that a Magistrate can decide on one of the following conclusions:

1. An open verdict; which basically means that the judge acknowledges the death was suspicious but he can’t come to other conclusions
2. A verdict of misadventure; which means that the circumstances of death was caused willingly (eg. the deceased took drugs on his own and overdosed)
3. Death caused by person(s) or person(s) unknown (explain)

So once the Magistrate gives out his decision, Section 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code says that the Magistrate must pass on his decision along with all the information he gathered to the Public Prosecutor – and the Public Prosecutor will decide whether or not to charge those responsible for the death. 

In the inquiry for Teoh Beng Hock’s death which we mentioned earlier, the Magistrate gave out the ‘open verdict’ decision. And it can be said that such a decision leaves things unanswered and it also doesn’t leave the family members with much closure. Which is why, technically the decision by a Magistrate conducting an inquiry isn’t final.

(the inquiry does not end there, so look at Teoh Beng Hock to know what happens next)

The High Court can revise the Magistrate’s inquiry decision

So when someone isn’t satisfied with a Magistrate’s inquiry decision, the matter can be referred to by the High Court in a process called revision. While it may seem like this is your average appeal procedure, a revision is entirely different. In an appeal, a dissatisfied party to a trial would have to make formal applications following strict procedures to seek recourse from a higher court. A revision on the other hand doesn’t have such strict procedures, and the High Court can be invoked for revision by just sending a simple letter. More importantly, it should be known that the powers of revision would be used only to correct or prevent a miscarriage of justice.

[READ MORE: Malaysian criminals go to different courts depending on their crime. Here's how it works]

Only if let’s say the High Court refuses to revise the Magistrate’s decision, then the matter can be appealed to the Court of Appeal. In fact, that’s exactly what happened to the Magistrate’s decision in Teoh Beng Hock’s inquiry. Teoh Beng Hock’s brother wasn’t satisfied with the Magistrate’s ‘open verdict’ and he sought the High Court’s revisionary powers. Unfortunately the High Court refused revision and allowed the Magistrate’s decision to stand, so he then appealed to the Court of Appeal. There the judges decided that the Magistrate was wrong to come up with the ‘open verdict’, and he should’ve decided it as ‘death caused by person(s) or person(s) unknown’ due to the injuries Teoh Beng Hock had on his neck.

Simply put, when there’s a death in custody it doesn’t go unchecked. When it happens, a Magistrate will be informed and an inquiry can be held into the cause of death. And even the Magistrate who holds the inquiry can be put under scrutiny as they can be reviewed by more experienced judicial officers to ensure that the proper procedures are followed. But of course this system isn’t perfect, because we may feel that there are cases out there that hasn’t been resolved satisfactorily. (It would encourage them to be more careful/accountable) (checks and balance) (highlights the need for reform)