Sunday, October 02, 2016

Cops implicated in Dharmendran's death found liable in family's civil suit (Malaysiakini)

See earlier relevant posts:-

Death in Police Custody - N Dharmendran (21 May 2013?)

Dharmendran - dead in police custody - classified as murder - but apparently still no police officer arrested..

Dharmendran's case - Desk duties for four cops

EAIC find the police responsible for death of Dharmendra in Police Custody?

Cops implicated in Dharmendran's death found liable in family's civil suit

   Geraldine Tong     Published     Updated

our police officers implicated in the custodial death of N Dharmendran have been found liable in default of appearance by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

This is for the civil suit filed by Dharmendran's wife Marry Mariay Susay, which named 11 defendants including the four police officers.

"The judge allowed judgment in default of appearance as the four police officers did not file their memorandum of appearance within time. We served the suit on them personally about a month ago.

"So they are fully aware of the suit as well as the case management before the judge yesterday, yet they did not even show up in court," said the wife's lawyer, Melissa Sasidaran to Malaysiakini when contacted today.

She added that they are currently getting Marry's instructions on filing for assessment of damages, now that they have judgement against the police officers.

However, she added that it is possible for the defendants to try to apply to set aside the judgment.

While defendants five through 11 are being represented by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), Melissa said that the first four defendants, the police officers, were not.

"If they were represented, they would have filed their appearance and we would be served a copy of it," she said, when asked if the police officers were represented by anyone.

Dharmendran was detained on May 11, 2013 and died 10 days later while in police custody at the Kuala Lumpur Police Contingent Headquarters (IPKKL).

The Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (EAIC) released a report on April 28 on the outcome of the public hearing into the death of Dharmendran, who had been found with 52 injuries on his body.

The EAIC affirmed that his death was a result of the use of physical force by the police, and that the two staples were stapled onto his ears while he was still alive.

The commission also found that some of the entries of the lock-up diary, written by the two lock-up sentries, were false.

Dharmendran's family first filed the civil suit against the 11 defendants on May 20.

Among the claims the suit is seeking are general damages for Marry as a dependant of Dharmendran, damages on behalf of Dharmendran's estate, assault and battery, negligence and breach of duty, false imprisonment, conspiracy among the defendants, vindicatory and aggravated damages.

They are also seeking damages against the fifth through the eighth defendants for misfeasance in public office as well as a declaration that the defendants deliberately, unlawfully and in bad faith, breached Dharmendran's fundamental rights to life and liberty.

The 11 defendants named are:

1. Inspector Hare Krishnan Subramaniam;
2. Corporal Mohd Haswadi Zamri Shaari;
3. Sergeant Jaffri Jaafar;
4. Corporal Mohd Nahar Abdul Rahman;
5. Assistant Commissioner of Police Yahya Abd Rahman;
6. Superintendent of Police Glenn Anthony Sinappah;
7. Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police Khairi Ahrasa;
8. Ku Chin Wah, who was the Criminal Investigation Department chief at that time;
9. Mohmad Salleh, who was the Kuala Lumpur chief police officer at that time;
10. IGP Khalid Abu Bakar; and
11. The Malaysian government.

Read more:

High Court acquits four cops over Dharmendran's death

  Alyaa Alhadjri     Published     Updated
he High Court in Kuala Lumpur today acquitted and discharged four policemen who were accused of murdering N Dharmendran while in custody in 2013.
Justice Kamardin Hashim delivered the judgment to a packed court room.

In his ruling, Kamardin said it was found that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt against the four accused.

No comments: