Woman sues Government over son's death and wins - Death in Police Custody

Well, there you have it - for at last we have a victory in a case of death in custody. The government really do not want any reasoned judgment of the court - and they would prefer that they lose for some technical/procedural non-compliance -- or that the final decision is some consent judgment (for if it is a consent judgment, the judge will not write his grounds of judgment). This is done, possibly, to ensure that there is no real precedence that other victims could rely on.

In a case against the DG of Immigration(and others), that I was involved in before, at the 11th hour (when they know that the judgment will not be going the government's way), they conceded and pushed for consent judgment to be recorded - and it that particular case, it did happen twice - the 2nd was for a contempt of court proceeding. And yes, in that case also, the Judge awarded cost, but left it to the Registrar to tax/access it .

And, in that case involving 40 Indian workers, the Registrar decided that cost be RM10,000-00 - and this was absurd because it works out to RM250 per worker. On review, that sum was cut down by half ...about RM5,000. Now, there is an application for review before the Judge...

So, I wonder how much would the award of damages be at the end of the day for this death in custody case. What is the value of human life? It would have been best that the Judge himself decided now the quantum of damages and the cost - for that would have put an end to this matter in court. Now, the family of the late M.Ulaganathan, who died in 2003, will still have to be in court for assessment of damages and cost. Speedy resolution of such cases is always best.

Woman sues Government over son's death and wins

BERNAMA (New Straits Times, also Malaysian Insider - 29/7/2008)

KUALA LUMPUR, TUES:

The High Court here today awarded damages to a woman who sued the police and the government for negligence over the death of her 19-year-old son while in police custody in 2003.

Justice Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail ruled that the defendants had failed to comply with the case management direction from the court.

Justice Wahab made the decision after the defendants failed to produce the affidavits and submissions as ordered by the court.

“In the circumstances, the court enters judgment for the plaintiff, general and special damages to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court,” he said Justice Abdul Wahab.

With the decision, besides the damages, Tamil Selwee, a housewife, also succeeded in her claim for four declarations, namely that the death of her son, M.Ulaganathan, while in police custody on July 21, 2003, was caused by the Royal Malaysia Police and that Ulaganathan’s death was caused by their breach of statutory duty, recklessness and gross and wanton negligence.

On July 17, 2006, Tamil Selwee, 50, filed a suit seeking the four declarations and damages, claiming that her son’s death while in custody at the Kajang district police headquarters was caused by police negligence.

She named the Inspector-General of Police, Selangor police chief, Kajang OCPD and the Malaysian government as defendants.

She said in her statement of claim that her son was well on May 12, 2003, but when she visited him at the police lockup on May 23 he was sick, could not walk properly, had swollen eyes and bruises and complained of having no appetite, She said she again visited her son a week later and found him still in a bad condition and he died on July 21 the same year.

The defendants, in their statement of defence, admitted that the police had detained Ulaganathan at the Kajang police station but denied that his injuries were caused by their negligence.

They said that throughout the time he was in their custody he was in good health and did not show any signs of sickness which required treatment by a doctor and that he also did not ask to be taken to see a doctor.

2008/07/30 (NST Online)

Mum wins damages for son's death in lock-up

Judge Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail ruled against the defendants after they failed to produce affidavits and submissions

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court yesterday awarded damages to a woman, who sued the police and government for negligence over the death of her 19-year-old son while in police custody in 2003.

Judge Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail ruled that the defendants had failed to comply with the case management direction from the court.

He made the decision after the defendants failed to produce the affidavits and submissions as ordered by the court.

"In the circumstances, the court enters judgment for the plaintiff, with general and special damages to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court," he said.

With the decision, Tamil Selwee, a housewife, also succeeded in her claim for four declarations.
The declarations were that the death of her son, M. Ulaganathan, while in police custody on July 21, 2003, was caused by the Royal Malaysia Police.

Ulaganathan's death was also caused by their breach of statutory duty, recklessness, and gross and wanton negligence.

On July 17, 2006, Tamil Selwee, 50, filed a suit seeking the four declarations and damages.

She claimed that her son's death at the Kajang district police headquarters was caused by police negligence.

She named the Inspector-General of Police, Selangor police chief, Kajang OCPD and the government as the defendants.

She said in her statement of claim that her son was well on May 12, 2003.

But when she visited him at the police lock-up on May 23, he was sick, could not walk properly, had swollen eyes, bruises and complained of having no appetite.

She said she visited her son again a week later and found him still in a bad condition and he died on July 21.

The defendants, in their statement of defence, admitted that the police had detained Ulaganathan at the Kajang police station.

But they denied that his injuries were caused by their negligence.

They said that throughout the time in police custody, the deceased was in good health and did not show any signs of sickness which required treatment by a doctor.

The deceased also did not ask to be taken to see a doctor. -- Bernama