Hold inquiries into all custodial deaths, NGO tells AG (FMT)

 # Note, the law, Criminal Procedure Code already says that the Coroner must hold INQUESTs for all deaths, and especially Death in Custody. So, there is NO need for a Court Order and no need for the AG to do anything. The Coroner(now a Session Court Judge) is duty bound by law to do INQUEST without anyone askinghim/her to do the inquiry into death. See MADPET's earlier statement -

Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

 Hold inquiries into all custodial deaths, NGO tells AG

FMT Reporters

-

February 7, 2022 9:14 AM

19 Shares

Police say there have been seven deaths in custody in the first five weeks of this year. (Freepik pic)

PETALING JAYA: An NGO has urged the attorney-general to conduct inquiries into every death in custody in the country.

This comes after police reported seven cases of custodial deaths in the first five weeks of 2022.

Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (CAGED) also called on the authorities to answer several questions linked to these deaths.

In one of the cases, it said, police had revealed that two detainees and two officers had been remanded for investigation, but their remand order expired on Jan 20.

“Has anyone been charged?” CAGED asked in a statement, adding that it wanted to know if police had also treated anyone as suspects in the other six cases.

It also questioned if the completed investigation reports would be submitted to the coroner within one month of each death, as promised by police to the police reform commission.

“WIll the Royal Malaysia Police ask the coroner to conduct inquiries into all deaths in custody?” it said, adding that Section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Code mandated that every death in police custody must be investigated by a coroner.

CAGED also pointed to the lack of consistency in announcements on the custodial deaths.

“For instance, the ethnicity of victims has been revealed only in four of the seven announcements and the remand dates have not been released for the sixth victim,” it said.

It also said the names of the victims had also been withheld by police and demanded an explanation for it. - FMT, 7/2/2022

6th Death in Police Custody of 2022...

 

The Malaysian law today places a duty for the Coroner to also move fast - to view the body, related sites, maybe even witnesses with a view at getting to the truth --- was the death caused by the action/omission of another, which makes it then not a 'sudden death' or a death by natural causes. Remember, the law now is that inquest on death and custody case MUST be completed in 6 months...  see Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

In January 2022, the reported deaths in police custody are as follows:-

a)      13/1/2022 - a 63 year old man, who would probably be alive, died in a police lock-up at the Taiping district police headquarters (IPD), Perak.

b)     16/1/2022 -  37-year-old man died at the Pengkalan Chepa police station at 4.35pm.

c)      28/1/2022 - 38-year-old detainee died at the Marang police station lock-up in Terengganu on Friday (Jan 28), and

d)     29/1/2022 -  38-year-old man died while in police custody in Kuala Kangsar, Perak

 

5th Death in Police Custody of 2022 - Myanmar national, Kajang district police headquarters - died on Wednesday. A local apparently caught and brought the foreigner to the police - the likelihood of it being 'sudden death' is little - was there force exerted or other things done before the foreigner was delivered to the police?

6th Death in Police Custody of 2022 - 38-year-old detainee was brought to the Indera Mahkota centralised lock-up last Tuesday to attend a hearing under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 today(3/2/2022) - died on 2/2/2022.[There is a similarity to the first case, where this person ought not even been in a police lock-up, which are for suspects investigated - not for persons already accused(charged) in court- this need to be looked into...]

See earlier relevant posts:-

Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

If proper procedure followed, 63 year old accused will be alive today, and not died in a police lock-up

Other relevant posts:- 

2022 2nd Death in Police Custody(16th Jan) - Pengkalan Chepa. Coroner - Tell us how he died? 

3rd Death in Police Custody in 2022 - at this rate, for 2022 we will get 36? All police lockups have CCTV by end 2021

4th death in police custody in 2022...Where is the Coroner - has he seen the body, started investigations,...??

 

Bukit Aman investigating death of foreign detainee at Kajang Hospital

---

• Nation

• Wednesday, 02 Feb 2022

  10:19 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR: Bukit Aman's Integrity and Standards Compliance Department (JIPS) is investigating a sudden death report involving a foreign detainee at Kajang Hospital on Wednesday (Feb 2).

JIPS director Datuk Azri Ahmad said the Myanmar national was sent to the hospital on Monday (Jan 31) at about 8.10am after complaining that he was not feeling well, after which he was admitted for further treatment.

"The hospital informed police that the detainee died on Wednesday and the cause of death was still undetermined,” he said in a statement.

He said on Jan 30, at about 5.30 pm, a local man had surrendered the foreigner to the Kajang district police headquarters on suspicion of motorcycle theft.

Azri said the suspect was being investigated under Section 379A of the Penal Code as well as Section 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63. - Bernama - Star, 2/2/2022

 

Detainee dies in Pahang

FMT Reporters

-

February 3, 2022 4:26 PM

Police said the 38-year-old detainee was to attend a drug hearing today. (Freepik pic)

PETALING JAYA: A detainee at the Penor Prison in Kuantan died yesterday after complaining of chest pain.

In a statement, Bukit Aman’s Integrity and Standards Compliance Department director Azri Ahmad said the 38-year-old detainee was brought to the Indera Mahkota centralised lock-up last Tuesday to attend a hearing under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 today.

The detainee complained of chest pain on Friday and was taken to Hospital Kuantan for treatment.

Yesterday, the hospital told police that the detainee had died due to tuberculosis.

“The Integrity and Standards Compliance Department’s custodial death investigation unit will investigate the case,” said Azri.

This is the sixth death of a detainee that Azri’s department has reported this year. - FMT, 3/2/2022

CHINA PRESS covered the MADPET Statement on death custody and contempt?

For full statement see

Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

CHINA PRESS covered the MADPET Statement

Unfortunately, I could not copy and paste here...so follow the link to read the full report..

 

Govt must complete inquests into deaths in custody on time – Charles Hector (Vibes)

 

Govt must complete inquests into deaths in custody on time – Charles Hector

NGO says by law, all such inquests are required to be completed within six months

Updated 11 hours ago · Published on 03 Feb 2022 11:20AM · 0 Comments

16 Shares

Madpet (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) says it is most concerned as to whether the coroner is doing its job, including the conducting of speedy inquests (inquiries) as required by existing laws. – Pixabay pic, February 3, 2022

AS of March 2019, all death in custody inquests has to be completed within six months.

In January 2022, 4 persons have already died in police custody, and Madpet (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is most concerned as to whether the coroner is doing its job, including the conducting of speedy inquests (inquiries) as required by existing laws.

The special coroner’s courts came into being in 2014, and are now pursuant to Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 by then Chief Justice Richard Malanjum, that came into force on March 8, 2019, amongst others, state that all deaths in custody inquests must be completed within six months.

The law also now stipulates the need for registration in court, and the duties of the coroner, who today is a sessions court judge. A non-compliance with the current law, including court directions may amount to not just an offence, but also a contempt of court.

In January 2022, the reported deaths in police custody are as follows:

a) 13/1/2022 – a 63-year-old man, who would probably be alive, died in a police lock-up at the Taiping district police headquarters (IPD), Perak

b) 16/1/2022 – a 37-year-old man died at the Pengkalan Chepa police station at 4.35pm

c) 28/1/2022 – a 38-year-old detainee died at the Marang police station lock-up in Terengganu on Friday (January 28), and

d) 29/1/2022 – a 38-year-old man died while in police custody in Kuala Kangsar, Perak

In compliance with the court’s directions, the inquest must be completed within six months. After March 8, 2019, Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 states, amongst others, that all deaths in custody inquests must be completed within six months. Other inquests/investigations of sudden death cases must be done in nine months.

On December 16 last year, the home minister disclosed in Parliament that the total number of death in police custody cases for the period beginning January 2015 until September 2021 was 79, and that inquests were conducted only for 20 cases. After the court’s direction, inquest not yet commenced should have started and ended within six months.

The special coroner’s court has been established since April 15, 2014, which provides also for the registration of deaths in court, and for duties and procedures for inquests. Has the minister, police and the prosecutors complied with these directions?

If not, then the home minister and also police, other law enforcers and even prosecutors may be guilty of contempt of court, over and above possibly a violation of existing applicable law for failing to commence and complete inquests in the remaining about 59 cases of death in police custody until September 2021, following the minister’s admission that inquests were only done for 20 cases.

All deaths, even sudden deaths, meaning deaths on the face of it not caused or expedited by actions and/or omissions of another, are required to be registered in court. All inquests need to be registered in court.

Special coroner’s court – with a sessions courts judge as coroner since 2014

Malaysia, through the judiciary, had established a special coroner’s court in every state capital since 2014, and determined that the coroner shall be a sessions court judge, and no longer a magistrate.

This coroner’s court will also deal with all deaths, not just deaths in custody, but even sudden deaths (natural deaths arising by reason no fault, be it action or omission, of another) and even deaths in workplaces, commonly referred to deaths by industrial accidents. All deaths need to be registered in court, where a different registration code is provided for inquests (Code 65A), and for deaths in custody (Code 65B). Other sudden deaths come under Code 65, which the coroner also needs to evaluate each of these allegedly “deaths by natural causes” and determine whether an inquest is needed or not.

Duties of the coroner

The practice directions state clear duties for the coroner, including the need to examine bodies at the place where death happens, participate in post-mortems, obligation to notify next of kin of the death, and also give notice to the next of kin when inquests are done. If the coroner cannot attend to view the body and the site where the death occurs, then the state director can instruct the nearest magistrate and/or sessions court judge to do the needful.

Speedy action crucial to prevent tampering with evidence

Madpet stresses the importance of speedy action by the coroner, who later is duty bound to determine “…when, where, how and after what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of the death.” (s.337 Criminal Procedure Code).

Further, there is always the real possibility that the police may contaminate the crime scene, having reference to the 2018 findings of the inquiry by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) into the death in custody of Syed Mohd Azlan which found police officer/s criminally liable, and also found that police had tampered with evidence – even causing a rubber mat and/or carpet possibly stained with blood to vanish.

Prosecution of accused no longer a total bar on inquest – just a delay

When someone is charged in court in connection with the death, the coroner cannot commence or continue with the inquest, until that case and related appeals are disposed of. This means that thereafter, the inquest can be commenced.

Police, besides assisting the coroner, have another different obligation

The other legal obligation of the police and the public prosecutors is the investigation to identify and prosecute the perpetrator of the crime that resulted in the death. To be able to charge anyone for a crime, the public prosecutor is duty bound to find sufficient evidence that, in their belief, will be sufficient to show that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not uncommon that the insufficiency of evidence leads to fact that a suspect may not be charged in court, and our hope is always that in such cases, investigations be continued until justice is served.

The coroner and the inquest procedure are there also to prevent mistakes by police and/or prosecutors like making a wrong conclusion of a death as being simply a “sudden death” or natural death for which no one is criminally liable.

Naturally, when it is a death in custody of the police or any other state bodies, it is all the more important that an inquest be done without fail by an independent coroner speedily. This special treatment of death in custody was emphasised by Parliament in the Criminal Procedure Code, and even the judiciary by the assignment of death in custody with a different code, requiring an inquest.

There were 166,507 deaths recorded in 2020, and Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 points out the added duty of the coroner to ascertain the details needed for the registration of deaths pursuant to Registration Of Births And Deaths Act 1957. As such, the sufficiency of the special coroner’s court with one sessions court judge as coroner per state needs to be re-evaluated. It may be best for the enactment of a Coroners Court Act, and provision of required staff to assist the coroner in carrying out its duties. It is best that the coroner is freed from other duties of a sessions court judge. It is best that the coroner’s court be placed under the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

As such, Madpet calls:

- For inquests into the recent four deaths in police custody in January 2022 to be completed in six months;

- contempt of court actions against the minister of home affairs, inspector-general of police and other law enforcement officers including prosecutors that caused the failure of ensuring inquests into death in police custody cases, as required by the chief justice’s Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019, to be completed within six months be seriously considered;

- For the consideration of criminal prosecution of police and/or others that failed to comply with the requirement of the Criminal Procedure Code with regards to inquests (inquiries into death);

- Call for action also against sessions court judges appointed as coroners, who failed to comply with the requirement of Practice Directions by the chief justice of the Federal Court;

- Call for the enactment of a Coroners Court Act, that will also provide for the employment of paid staff to assist the coroner in carrying out his/her duties, noting that the coroner has the responsibility of looking into not just deaths in police custody, but all deaths including deaths at workplaces, when on average, there is about 150,000 or more deaths annually in Malaysia; and

- Calls on the chief justice of the Federal Court to forthwith disclose the number of sudden deaths, number of inquests, number of inquests into death in custody cases that have been registered and considered by the coroner and their outcomes. – The Vibes, February 3, 2022

Charles Hector is spokesman for Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture

 

See full statement at 

Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

Death in custody inquest: Can contempt proceedings be held against Home Minister?[Focus Malaysia]

 

Death in custody inquest: Can contempt proceedings be held against Home Minister?

• By Cheah Chor Sooi
• 4 hours ago
• in Mainstream, Top

NON-GOVERNMENTAL organisation (NGO) Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET) is curious if the Home Minister, Inspector General of Police (IGP) and other law enforcement officers (prosecutors) are in contempt of court for their failure to ensure inquests into death in police custody cases.

This is given that Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 by then Chief Justice Richard Malanjum that came into force on March 8, 2019 stated among others that all deaths in custody inquest must be completed within six months.

Moreover, the Special Coroners Court has been established since April 15, 2014 to enable registration of deaths in court as well as to undertake duties and procedures for inquest.

“Has the minister, the police and the prosecutors complied with this directions?” asked MADPET co-founder Charles Hector in a media statement.

Charles Hector

“In January 2022, four persons have already died in police custody, and MADPET is most concerned as to whether the coroner is doing its job, including the conducting of speedy inquests (inquiries) as required by existing laws,”

The four reported deaths in police custody are, namely:

• Jan 13: A 63 year-old man died in a police lock-up at the Taiping district police headquarters (IPD) in Perak.
• Jan 16: A 37-year-old man died at the Pengkalan Chepa police station at 4.35pm.
• Jan 28: A 38-year-old detainee died at the Marang police station lock-up in Terengganu.
• Jan 29: A 38-year-old man died while in police custody in Kuala Kangsar, Perak.

On Dec 16 last year, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin disclosed in Parliament that the total number of death in police custody cases for the period beginning January 2015 until September 2021 was 79 with inquest conducted only for 20 cases.

Stressing the importance of speedy action by the Coroner who is duty-bound to determine “when, where, how and what manner the deceased came by his death”, MADPET called on:

• A consideration of criminal prosecution of police and/or others that failed to comply with the requirement of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to inquests (inquiries into death);
• Action against Session Court Judges appointed as Coroners who failed to comply with the requirement of practice directions by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court;
• The enactment of a Coroners Court Act that will also provide for the employment of paid staff to assist the Coroner in carrying out his/her duties (noting that the Coroner has the responsibility of looking into not just deaths in police custody but all deaths including deaths at workplaces when on an average there is about 150,000 or more deaths annually in Malaysia); and
• The Chief Justice of the Federal Court to disclose the number of sudden deaths and number of inquest on death in custody cases that have been registered and considered by the Coroner and their outcomes. – Feb 3, 2022 , Focus Malaysia 
•  
• See full statement at 
  

  Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

Madpet calls for contempt of court against home minister, IGP (Malaysiakini)

 See full media statement -Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

Madpet calls for contempt of court against home minister, IGP

Published:  Feb 3, 2022 7:30 PM

⋅

Updated: 7:30 PM

 

The Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) has called for contempt of court against those responsible for obstructing inquests in custodial death cases from being completed within the required time frame.

In the group’s statement today, Madpet’s list of individuals includes Hamzah Zainudin, Inspector-General of Police Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani and other law enforcement officers such as the prosecutors.

“Madpet calls for the contempt of court actions against these individuals who caused the failure of ensuring inquests in death in police custody cases, as required by the chief justice’s Practice Direction No 2 of 2019, to be completed within six months be seriously considered,” it said.

Effective March 2019, Practice Direction No 2 of 2019 states that all deaths in custody inquests must be completed within six months - with other inquests of sudden death cases to be done within nine months.

“In December last year, Hamzah disclosed in Parliament that the total number of deaths in police custody cases for the period beginning January 2015 until September 2021 was 79, and those inquests were conducted only for 20 cases.

“After the court’s direction, (said) inquests (were) not yet commenced (even though it) should have started and ended within six months.

“The Special Coroners Court has been established since April 15, 2014, which provides also for the registration of deaths in court, and for duties and procedures for (the) inquest.

“Has the minister, the police and the prosecutors complied with these directions?” asked the group.

It added that if the relevant authorities failed to act in accordance with said directions, they should be found guilty of contempt of court.

The group’s statement comes after four reported custodial deaths which took place last month in Kelantan, Perak and Terengganu.

Additionally, among other calls, Madpet pushed for the inquest of the four recent custodial deaths to be completed in six months and for the enactment of a Coroners Court Act - providing for the employment of paid staff to assist the coroner in carrying out their duties.

Further, the group called on the chief justice of the Federal Court to disclose the number of sudden deaths, number of inquests looking into death in custody cases that have been registered and considered by the coroner, as well as their outcomes. - Malaysiakini, 3/2/2022

Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

Media Statement – 2/2/2022

Contempt Proceedings Against Home Minister and Others for failure to complete inquest in death in custody cases as directed by the Judiciary?

As of March 2019, all death in custody inquests had to completed within 6 months

In January 2022, 4 persons have already died in police custody, and MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is most concerned as to whether the Coroner is doing its job, including the conducting of speedy inquests (inquiries) as required by existing laws.

The Special Coroners Courts came into being in 2014, and now pursuant to Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 by then Chief Justice Richard Malanjum, that came into force on 8/3/2019, amongst others, state that all deaths in custody inquest must be completed within six(6) months.

The law also now stipulates the need for registration in court, and the duties of the Coroner, who today is a Sessions Court Judge. A non-compliance of the current law, including Court Directions may amount to not just an offence, but also a Contempt of Court.

In January 2022, the reported deaths in police custody are as follows:-

a)      13/1/2022 - a 63 year old man, who would probably be alive, died in a police lock-up at the Taiping district police headquarters (IPD), Perak.

b)     16/1/2022 -  37-year-old man died at the Pengkalan Chepa police station at 4.35pm.

c)      28/1/2022 - 38-year-old detainee died at the Marang police station lock-up in Terengganu on Friday (Jan 28), and

d)     29/1/2022 -  38-year-old man died while in police custody in Kuala Kangsar, Perak

 

In compliance with the Court’s directions, the inquest must be completed within six(6) months. After 8/3/2019, Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 states, amongst others, that all deaths in custody inquest must be completed within six(6) months. Other inquest/investigation of sudden death cases must be done in 9 months.

On 16/12/2021, the Home Minister disclosed in Parliament that the total number of death in police custody cases for the period beginning January 2015 until September 2021 was 79, and that inquest was conducted only for 20 cases. After the Court’s direction, inquest not yet commenced should have started and ended within 6 months.

The Special Coroners Court has been established since 15/4/2014, which provides also for the registration of deaths in court, and for duties and procedures for inquest. Has the Minister, the police and the prosecutors complied with this directions?

If not, then the Home Minister and also the police, other law enforcers and even prosecutors may be guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT, over and above possibly a violation of existing applicable law for failing to commence and complete inquests in the remaining about 59 cases of death in police custody until September 2021, following the Minister’s admission that inquest was only done for 20 cases.

All deaths even sudden deaths, meaning deaths on the face of it not caused or expedited by actions and/or omissions of another, are required to be registered in court. All inquests need to be registered in court.

Special Coroners Court – with a Sessions Courts Judge as Coroner since 2014

Malaysia, through the Judiciary, had established a Special Coroners Court in every State Capital since 2014, and determined that the Coroner shall be a Sessions Court Judge, and no longer a Magistrate.

This Coroners Court will also deal with all deaths, not just deaths in custody, but even sudden deaths (natural deaths arising by reason no fault, be it action or omission, of another) and even deaths in workplaces, commonly referred to deaths by industrial accidents. All deaths need to be registered in court, where a different registration Code is provided for inquests (Code 65A), and for deaths in custody(Code 65B). Other sudden deaths come under Code 65, which the Coroner also need to evaluate each of these allegedly ‘deaths by natural causes’ and determine whether an inquest is needed or not.

Duties of the Coroner

The practice directions states clear duties on the Coroner, including the need to examine bodies at place where death happens, participate in post-mortems, obligation to notify next of kin of the death, and also give notice to the next of kin when inquests be done. If the Coroner cannot attend to view the body and the site where the death occurs, then the State Director can instruct the nearest Magistrate and/or Session Court judge to do the needful.  

Speedy Action Crucial To Prevent Tampering With Evidence

MADPET stresses the importance of speedy action by the Coroner, who later is duty bound to determine ‘…when, where, how and after what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of the death.'(s.337 Criminal Procedure Code).  

Further, there is always the real possibility that the police may contaminate the crime scene, having reference to the 2018 findings of the inquiry by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) into the death in custody of Syed Mohd Azlan which found police officer/s criminally liable, and also found  that the police had tampered with evidence – even causing a rubber mat and/or carpet possibly stained with blood to vanish.

Prosecution of accused no longer a total bar on inquest – just a delay

When someone is charged in court in connection with the death, the Coroner cannot commence or continue with the inquest, until that case and related appeals are disposed off. This means that thereafter, the inquest can be commenced.

Police, besides assisting the Coroner, have another different obligation

The other legal obligation of the police and the Public Prosecutors is the investigation to identify and prosecute the perpetrator of the crime that resulted in the death. To be able to charge anyone for a crime, the Public Prosecutor is duty bound to find sufficient evidence that, in their belief, will be sufficient to show that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not uncommon that the insufficiency of evidence leads to fact that a suspect may not be charged in court, and our hope is always that in such cases, investigations be continued until justice is served.

The Coroner and the inquest procedure  is there also to prevent mistakes by police and/or prosecutors like making a wrong conclusion of a death as being simply a ‘sudden death’ or natural death for which no one is criminally liable.

Naturally, when it is death in custody of the police or any other State bodies, it is all the more important that an inquest be done without fail by an independent Coroner speedily. This special treatment of death in custody was emphasized by Parliament in the Criminal Procedure Code, and even the Judiciary by the assignment of death in custody with a different code, requiring an inquest.

There were 166,507 deaths recorded in 2020, and Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 points out the added duty of the Coroner to ascertain the details needed for the registration of deaths pursuant to Registration Of Births  And Deaths Act 1957. As such, the sufficiency of the Special Coroners Court with 1 Session Court Judge as Coroner per State needs to be re-evaluated. It may be best for the enactment of a Coroners Court Act, and provision of required staff to assist the Coroner in carrying out its duties. It is best that the Coroner is freed from other duties of a Session Court Judge. It is best that the Coroners Court be placed under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary.

As such, MADPET calls

-         For inquest of the recent 4 deaths in police custody in January 2022 to be completed in 6 months;

-         Contempt of Court actions against the Minister of Home Affairs, Inspector General of Police and other law enforcement officers including prosecutors that caused the failure of ensuring inquests in death in police custody cases, as required by Chief Justice’s Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019, to be completed within 6 months be seriously considered;

-         For the consideration of criminal prosecution of police and/or others that failed to comply with the requirement of the Criminal Procedure Code with regards to inquests(inquiries into death);

-         Call for action also against Session Court Judges appointed as Coroners, who failed to comply with the requirement of Practice Directions by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court;

-         Call for the enactment of a Coroners Court Act, that will also provide for the employment of paid staff to assist the Coroner in carrying out his/her duties, noting that the Coroner has the responsibility of looking into not just deaths in police custody, but all deaths including deaths at workplaces, when on an average there is about 150,000 or more deaths annually in Malaysia; and

-         Calls on the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to forthwith disclose the number of sudden deaths, number of inquests, number of inquest on death in custody cases that have been registered and considered by the Coroner and their outcomes.

Charles Hector

For an on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Note:-

To view the relevant Practice Directions of the Court mentioned/referred to the above media statement, see Death in Custody - Coroner is Session Court Judges, no more Magistrate, all deaths must be registered in court - Practice Direction

A MADPET statement that was issued following the 1st Death in Police Custody can be seen here

If proper procedure followed, 63 year old accused will be alive today, and not died in a police lock-up

Other relevant posts:- 

2022 2nd Death in Police Custody(16th Jan) - Pengkalan Chepa. Coroner - Tell us how he died? 

3rd Death in Police Custody in 2022 - at this rate, for 2022 we will get 36? All police lockups have CCTV by end 2021

4th death in police custody in 2022...Where is the Coroner - has he seen the body, started investigations,...??

Death in Custody - Coroner is Session Court Judges, no more Magistrate, all deaths must be registered in court - Practice Direction

The Malaysian Judiciary has 'established' the Coroners Court, and set direction on the handling of cases of death categorised as 'sudden death' and Inquests. All cases including death in custody has to be finished within a defined time. Inquest in DEATH IN CUSTODY cases ought to be completed withion 6 months from the date of registration.

Kes LMM hendaklah diselesaikan dalam tempoh 1 bulan dari tarikh pendaftaran kes LMM di Mahkamah Sesyen Koroner....5.2 Kes Siasatan Kematian (am) hendaklah diselesaikan dalam tempoh 9 bulan dari tarikh pendaftaran kes Siasatan Kematian di Mahkamah Sesyen Koroner manakala bagi kes Siasatan Kematian (kematian dalam tahanan) hendaklah diselesaikan dalam tempoh 6 bulan dari tarikh pendaftaran kes.

The 2019 Practice Direction by CJ RICHARD MALANJUM cancels the previous Practice Direction of 2014 of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court, which revoked the 2007 Puractice Direction of CJ  SITI NORMA YAAKOB

ARAHAN AMALAN BIL. 2 TAHUN 2019

PENGENDALIAN LAPORAN MATI MENGEJUT DAN SIASATAN KEMATIAN OLEH MAHKAMAH SESYEN KORONER

---

Ruj. Tuan:

Ruj. Kami:

Tarikh:

Pengarah Mahkamah Negeri
Seluruh Malaysia

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen
Seluruh Malaysia

Majistret
Mahkamah Majistret
Seluruh Malaysia

Penolong Kanan Pendaftar
Mahkamah Rendah
Seluruh Malaysia

Penolong Pendaftar
Mahkamah Rendah
Seluruh Malaysia

YBhg. Datuk/Datok/Datin/Tuan/Puan,

ARAHAN AMALAN BIL 2 TAHUN 2019

PENGENDALIAN LAPORAN MATI MENGEJUT DAN SIASATAN KEMATIAN OLEH MAHKAMAH SESYEN KORONER

YAA Ketua Hakim Negara setelah berunding dengan YAA Hakim Besar Malaya dan YAA Hakim Besar Sabah dan Sarawak, dengan ini mengeluarkan arahan bagi pengendalian kes Laporan Mati Mengejut (LMM) dan Siasatan Kematian oleh Mahkamah Sesyen Koroner.

2. Semua kes LMM dan Siasatan Kematian hendaklah dikendalikan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang digelar Koroner.

3. Kes LMM dan Siasatan Kematian bukan sahaja terhad kepada kes kematian dalam tahanan polis, kematian dalam penjara, kematian di mana-mana pusat tahanan dan kematian orang tahanan di hospital tetapi juga semua kes kematian yang memerlukan siasatan dibuat di bawah Bab XXXII Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593].

4. PENGELASAN KOD KES

4.1 Kes siasatan kematian yang difailkan hendaklah didaftarkan di

Mahkamah Sesyen Koroner di Negeri yang berkenaan mengikut pengelasan kod seperti yang berikut:

Kod	Butiran
65	Kes Laporan Mengejut (LMM)
65A	Kes Siasatan Kematian (AM)
65B	Kes Siasatan Kematian (Kematian Dalam Tahanan)

4.2 Walaupun kes LMM telah didaftarkan di bawah Kod 65, sekiranya Koroner setelah meneliti LMM tersebut mendapati bahawa Siasatan Kematian perlu dijalankan, maka kes itu hendaklah didaftarkan semula di bawah Kod 65A atau Kod 65B.

5. GARIS MASA PENYELESAIAN KES LMM / SIASATAN KEMATIAN

5.1 Kes LMM hendaklah diselesaikan dalam tempoh 1 bulan dari tarikh pendaftaran kes LMM di Mahkamah Sesyen Koroner.

5.2 Kes Siasatan Kematian (am) hendaklah diselesaikan dalam tempoh 9 bulan dari tarikh pendaftaran kes Siasatan Kematian di Mahkamah Sesyen Koroner manakala bagi kes Siasatan Kematian (kematian dalam tahanan) hendaklah diselesaikan dalam tempoh 6 bulan dari tarikh pendaftaran kes.

6. GARIS PANDUAN PENGENDALIAN KES SIASATAN KEMATIAN

Garis panduan bagi pengendalian kes siasatan kematian adalah seperti di Lampiran A Arahan Amalan ini.

7. PEMERIKSAAN MAYAT

7.1 Koroner tidak diwajibkan untuk hadir semasa pemeriksaan mayat melainkan pegawai penyiasat berpendapat kehadiran Koroner adalah perlu.

7.2 Sekiranya pegawai penyiasat berpendapat terdapat keperluan untuk kehadiran Koroner, perkara berikut hendaklah dipatuhi:

7.2.1 Koroner hendaklah hadir di tempat mayat berada dan melakukan pemeriksaan dengan segera;

7.2.2 Koroner tidak perlu membuat catatan atau nota semasa pemeriksaan mayat. Catatan boleh dibuat oleh pegawai penyiasat dengan pengesahan bahawa Koroner telah hadir semasa pemeriksaan mayat.

7.2.3 Sekiranya atas sebab yang tidak dapat dielakkan, Koroner tidak dapat melaksanakan tugas seperti di perenggan 7.2.1, Pengarah Negeri boleh mengarahkan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen atau Majistret di daerah berkenaan atau di daerah yang berhampiran untuk melaksanakan tugas pemeriksaan mayat tersebut.

7.3 Sekiranya pegawai penyiasat memutuskan bahawa mayat yang diperiksa perlu dibedah siasat, Koroner tidak perlu hadir semasa bedah siasat (post mortem) dijalankan.

7.4 Koroner tidak mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk memutuskan berkenaan keperluan untuk bedah siasat bagi kes mati mengejut, melainkan keadaan yang diperuntukkan di bawah Seksyen 335 (2) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah.

8. PENGENDALIAN KES DAN FAIL-FAIL LMM / SIASATAN KEMATIAN

8.1 Semua kes LMM dan siasatan kematian hendaklah difailkan secara elektronik berserta surat permohonan dan fail LMM yang lengkap. Fail LMM yang tidak lengkap boleh ditolak oleh Mahkamah.

8.2 Ketetapan di perenggan 8.1 hanya terpakai bagi lokasi Mahkamah yang mempunyai sistem aplikasi digital secara elektronik. Bagi lokasi Mahkamah yang masih menggunapakai sistem pemfailan manual, proses kerja sedia ada adalah terpakai.

8.3 Fail LMM yang dikemukakan secara manual kepada Mahkamah hendaklah dipulangkan kepada pihak pemohon setelah fail selesai disemak dan verdict (keputusan) diberikan.

9. PEMBATALAN ARAHAN AMALAN BIL. 2 TAHUN 2014

Arahan Amalan Bil. 2 Tahun 2014 - Pengendalian Siasatan Kematian (Death Inquiry) Selaras Dengan Penubuhan Mahkamah Khas Koroner adalah dibatalkan.

10. TARIKH KUAT KUASA

Arahan ini berkuat kuasa pada 8 Mac 2019.

Sekian, Terima kasih.

(YAA TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA RICHARD MALANJUM)
Ketua Hakim Negara
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Salinan Kepada:

YAA Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

YAA Hakim Besar Malaya
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

YAA Hakim Besar Sabah dan Sarawak
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Peguam Negara
Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia
45, Persiaran Perdana
Presint 4
62100 PUTRAJAYA

Ketua Polis Negara
lbu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit Aman
50560 KUALA LUMPUR

Ketua Pendaftar
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Timbalan Ketua Pendaftar (Polisi)
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Timbalan Ketua Pendaftar (Operasi)
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Pendaftar
Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Sabah Dan Sarawak
Kompleks Mahkamah Kuching
Jalan Gersik, Petra Jaya
93050 KUCHING,SARAWAK

Pendaftar Mahkamah Rendah Malaya
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Pendaftar Mahkamah Rendah Sabah dan Sarawak
Kompleks Mahkamah Kuching
Jalan Gersik, Petra Jaya
93050 KUCHING,SARAWAK

Ketua Pengarah
Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia
Ibu Pejabat KKM Blok E1, E6, E7 & E10, Parcel, Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan,
62590 PUTRAJAYA

Ketua Bahagian Pendakwaan
Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia
45, Persiaran Perdana
Presint 4
62100 PUTRAJAYA

Peguam Besar Negeri Sarawak
Tingkat 15 & 16
Wisma Bapa Malaysia Petra Jaya
93502 Kuching SARAWAK

Peguam Besar Negeri Sabah
Tingkat 8 & 9
Menara Tun Mustapha
Teluk Likas
Beg Berkunci 2054
88990 KOTA KINABALU
SABAH

Pengarah
Bahagian Dasar dan Perundangan
Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Timbalan Pendaftar/Penolong Kanan Pendaftar
Mahkamah Tinggi
SELURUH MALAYSIA

Pengarah
Bahagian Teknologi Maklumat dan E-Kehakiman
Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Pustakawan
Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman
PUTRAJAYA

Presiden
Majlis Peguam Malaysia
15, Leboh Pasar Besar
50050 KUALA LUMPUR

Pengerusi
Persatuan Undang-Undang Sabah
Suite No. 6-6-11
6th Floor, Menara MAA
No. 6, Lorong Api-Api 1
88000 KOTA KINABALU, SABAH

Pengerusi
Persatuan Peguambela Sarawak
The Bar Room,
Kompleks Mahkamah Kuching
Jalan Gersik, Petra Jaya
93050 KUCHING, SARAWAK

---

LAMPIRAN A

GARIS PANDUAN MENGENAI SIASATAN KEMATIAN (PERUNTUKAN YANG BERKAITAN DALAM BAHAGIAN VIII BAB XXXII SEKSYEN 328-341 KANUN TATACARA JENAYAH )

1. APA ITU SIASATAN KEMATIAN

(a) Siasatan Kematian bukanlah seperti suatu perbicaraan;

(b) Tiada pihak yang mendakwa dan membela;

(c) Siasatan Kematian adalah suatu siasatan oleh Koroner/Majistret tentang sebab kematian dan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya yang hadir semasa Siasatan Kematian bukan untuk mendakwa seseorang tetapi hanya untuk membantu Mahkamah dengan pemeriksaan saksi bagi maksud memberikan keterangan;

(d) Peguam bela yang menghadiri suatu Siasatan Kematian bukanlah untuk membela seseorang, tetapi hadir untuk menjaga kepentingan pihak-pihak yang melantik beliau. Walaupun peguam bela tidak diberi hak untuk pemeriksaan saksi semasa Siasatan Kematian, hak ini jarang menjadi suatu isu kerana Mahkamah lazimnya akan memuaskan hati pihak-pihak bagi pemeriksaan saksi apabila permohonan dibuat oleh pihak-pihak;

(e) Walaupun berhujah tanpa kebenaran di hadapan mahkamah bukanlah perbuatan menghina mahkamah, perbuatan sedemikian adalah suatu perbuatan yang tidak sopan. Ini selari dengan penekanan terhadap etika kesopanan dalam profesion undang-undang;

(f) Seorang Koroner/Majistret tidak boleh menyatakan apa-apa pendapat mengenai apa-apa perkara sehingga Siasatan Kematian tamat;

(g) Tiada sabitan atau penghukuman di akhir Siasatan Kematian.

2. PERKARA YANG PERLU DIBERI PENEKANAN SEMASA SIASATAN KEMATIAN

Prosiding dan keterangan dalam suatu Siasatan Kematian hendaklah ditumpukan kepada perkara yang berikut:

(a) siapa si mati;

(b) bagaimana, bila dan di mana si mati menemui ajalnya;

(c) butir-butir yang diperlukan menurut Akta Pendaftaran Kelahiran dan Kematian 1957 [Akta 299] untuk mendaftarkan kematian si mati;

(d) orang yang melakukan perbuatan atau peninggalan yang menyalahi undang-undang yang menyebabkan kematian, jika terdapat keterangan sedemikian, tanpa membuat apa-apa dapatan mengenai liabiliti jenayah orang itu.

3. BILA SIASATAN KEMATIAN PERLU DIADAKAN

A. Bila Siasatan Kematian Mesti Diadakan

Koroner/Majistret mesti mengadakan suatu Siasatan Kematian jika:-

(a) mana-mana orang mati semasa dalam jagaan polis (seksyen 334 KTJ);

(b) mana-mana orang mati semasa dalam jagaan, atau dalam hal keadaan yang menimbulkan keraguan mengenai penjagaan si mati; atau

(c) Pendakwa Raya meminta Koroner/Majistret untuk mengaturkan supaya suatu Siasatan Kematian diadakan mengenai kematian itu (seksyen 339 KTJ yang dibaca bersama seksyen 328 dan 329 KTJ).

B. Bila Siasatan Kematian Boleh Diadakan

Siasatan Kematian boleh diadakan untuk menyiasat suatu laporan kematian jika Koroner/Majistret berpendapat adalah wajar untuk mengadakan Siasatan Kematian (seksyen 334 KTJ) bagi mana-mana kes orang yang mati semasa dalam hospital psikiatri atau penjara.

C. Bila Siasatan Kematian Tidak Perlu Diadakan Atau Tidak Diteruskan [Seksyen 333(3) KTJ]

1. Apabila seseorang telah dituduh dengan suatu kesalahan yang berkemungkinan dia adalah orang yang menyebabkan kematian itu.

2. Jika Koroner/Majistret telah diberitahu bahawa prosiding jenayah akan dimulakan terhadap mana-mana orang sebelum Siasatan Kematian bermula, Koroner/Majistret tidak boleh memulakan Siasatan Kematian tersebut sehingga tamatnya prosiding jenayah itu, termasuk apa-apa rayuan yang berkaitan dengannya.

D. Kategori Kes Yang Lazimnya Siasatan Kematian Diadakan

(1) Apa-apa kematian yang menimbulkan ketidakpastian atau keterangan yang bercanggah mengenainya yang mewajarkan penggunaan proses forensik kehakiman.

(2) Apa-apa kematian yang melalui Siasatan Kematian boleh mendedahkan kecacatan sistemik yang penting atau risiko yang tidak diketahui.

(3) Apa-apa kematian yang menurut pandangan keluarga atau anggota masyarakat yang berkepentingan bahawa suatu Siasatan Kematian itu berkemungkinan akan membantu mengekalkan keyakinan orang ramai terhadap pentadbiran keadilan, perkhidmatan kesihatan atau lain-lain agensi awam.

(4) Apa-apa kematian yang apabila digabungkan bersekali dengan kematian orang lain yang berlaku dalam hal keadaan yang serupa yang boleh menunjukkan bahawa berkemungkinan terdapatnya peningkatan bahaya yang tidak dijangka di lokasi, kawasan, keluarga, industri atau aktiviti tertentu.

(5) Apa-apa kematian yang berlaku di tempat kerja yang melibatkan proses industri atau aktiviti tertentu.

(6) Apa-apa bencana yang melibatkan kematian berganda.

(7) Apa-apa kematian akibat mencederakan diri sendiri yang tidak boleh mengecualikan penglibatan pihak ketiga yang menyebabkan kematian itu.

4. PENGENDALIAN SEBELUM SIASATAN KEMATIAN

A. Melihat Mayat Si Mati

(1) Apabila Koroner/Majistret diberitahu tentang kematian seseorang semasa dalam jagaan di bawah seksyen 329 atau kematian seseorang semasa dalam jagaan di bawah seksyen 334 KTJ, Koroner/Majistret hendaklah, setakat mana yang bersesuaian:

• Bersama Pegawai Perubatan, melihat dan memeriksa mayat in situ, untuk mengambil perhatian tentang apa-apa kecederaan atau tanda pada mayat;

• Mendapatkan maklumat yang berkaitan dengan penemuan mayat (dalam kes kematian semasa dalam jagaan);

Apa-apa pemerhatian yang dibuat hendaklah dicatat secara bertulis dan catatan tersebut hendaklah menjadi sebahagian daripada nota Koroner/Majistret dalam Siasatan Kematian.

(2) Koroner/Majistret dengan bantuan pihak polis hendaklah:-

• memaklumkan dengan segera keluarga/waris kadim/orang yang berkepentingan tentang kematian si mati;

• memaklumkan kepada keluarga/waris kadim/orang berkepentingan tentang apa-apa pemeriksaan post-mortem yang hendak dijalankan dan alasan bagi pemeriksaan post-mortem tersebut;

(3) Koroner/Majistret hendaklah memastikan bahawa mayat si mati diserahkan kepada keluarga/waris kadim untuk dikebumikan dengan seberapa segera dengan syarat siasatan dan/atau post-mortem yang perlu bagi maksud Siasatan Kematian telah dijalankan dengan sewajarnya. Apa-apa alasan kelewatan dalam serahan mayat si mati hendaklah direkodkan dalam nota Koroner/Majistret.

B. Notis untuk mengadakan Siasatan Kematian

Koroner/Majistret hendaklah dengan bantuan pihak Polis, memaklumkan keluarga/waris kadim berkenaan dengan tarikh, masa dan tempat Siasatan Kematian. Notis ini hendaklah diserahkan tidak kurang dari 2 minggu sebelum tarikh Siasatan Kematian.

5. SIASATAN KEMATIAN

A. Protokol Pemeriksaan Saksi

Koroner/Majistret mempunyai kawalan terhadap prosiding, dan hendaklah memulakan pemeriksaan saksi, dan diikuti oleh pemeriksaan saksi oleh orang lain yang dibenarkan untuk mengambil bahagian dalam Siasatan Kematian. Koroner/Majistret dibantu oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya.

B. Kelayakan Pemeriksaan Saksi

Terdapat hanya 'orang yang berkepentingan' sahaja dalam prosiding Siasatan Kematian. Koroner/Majistret hendaklah menggunakan budi bicaranya untuk menentukan siapa yang layak untuk memeriksa saksi, termasuk yang berikut:

(a) ibu bapa, anak, pasangan dan mana-mana wakil diri bagi si mati;

(b) mana-mana orang melakukan apa-apa perbuatan atau peninggalan yang menyalahi undang-undang atau mana-mana ejen atau pekhidmatnya boleh, menurut pendapat Koroner/Majistret, telah menyebabkan, atau menyumbang kepada, kematian si mati;

(c) seorang pemeriksa yang dilantik oleh, atau seorang wakil diri, pihak berkuasa yang menguat kuasa, atau mana-mana orang yang dilantik oleh Jabatan Kerajaan untuk menghadiri Siasatan Kematian; dan

(d) mana-mana orang lain, menurut pendapat Koroner/Majistret, adalah orang yang berkepentingan.

C. Penzahiran Dokumen

Koroner/Majistret mempunyai budi bicara berkenaan dengan penzahiran dokumen. Budi bicara ini hendaklah secara amnya dilaksanakan untuk membenarkan penzahiran dokumen.

D. Kelonggaran pemakaian tatacara dan kaedah keterangan

Tatacara dan kaedah keterangan yang sesuai untuk proses accusatorial adalah tidak sesuai bagi proses siasatan.

Koroner/Majistret tidak wajar membenarkan mana-mana cubaan oleh pihak-pihak berkepentingan untuk mempertikaikan kredibiliti saksi, sebagai contoh, melalui prosiding mencabar kebolehpercayaan (impeachment proceedings).

F. Keterangan Yang Menjerat Diri Sendiri (Self Incrimination)

Saksi yang hadir dalam prosiding Siasatan Kematian tidak perlu menjawab apa-apa soalan yang cenderung untuk menjerat diri saksi itu (self-incriminate).

Jika seorang saksi telah ditanya dengan soalan sedemikian, Koroner/Majistret hendaklah memaklumkan kepada saksi bahawa dia boleh untuk tidak menjawab soalan itu.

G. Dapatan Koroner/Majistret

Koroner/Majistret yang mengendalikan Siasatan Kematian hendaklah membuat dapatan mengenai:-

(a) siapa si mati;

(b) bagaimana si mati mati;

(c) bila si mati mati;

(d) di mana si mati mati;

(e) sebab kematian si mati; dan

(f) mana-mana orang, yang melakukan perbuatan atau melakukan peninggalan yang menyalahi undang-undang yang menyebabkan kematian, tanpa membuat apa-apa dapatan mengenai liabiliti jenayah orang itu.

H. Keputusan (Verdict) Koroner/Majistret

Keputusan (verdict) Siasatan Kematian oleh Koroner/Majistret tidak boleh menentukan persoalan mengenai:-

liabiliti jenayah; atau

liabiliti sivil,

bagi seorang yang dinamakan.

Pada akhir Siasatan Kematian, Koroner/Majistret mesti menyampaikan verdict berdasarkan mana-mana satu yang berikut:

(a) mati yang tidak dapat ditentukan cara kematian (open verdict);

(b) mati akibat kemalangan (misadventure);

(c) mati akibat penyakit (natural death);

(d) mati akibat perbuatan orang lain (homicide);

(e) mati akibat perbuatan diri sendiri (suicide).

I. Tempat Siasatan Kematian

Tempat Siasatan Kematian hendaklah terbuka kepada orang awam tetapi Koroner/Majistret boleh, atas alasan tertentu yang suai manfaat, mengecualikan kehadiran orang awam atau mana-mana orang pada mana-mana peringkat siasatan [seksyen 338(2) KTJ].

J. Penyegeraan Prosiding Siasatan Kematian

Atas dasar kepentingan awam, suatu prosiding Siasatan Kematian hendaklah disegerakan dan diberi keutamaan. Prosiding Siasatan Kematian hendaklah dikendalikan secara berterusan sehingga tamat.

6. PASCA PROSIDING SIASATAN KEMATIAN

A. Koroner/Majistret hendaklah menghantar kepada Pendakwa Raya keseluruhan fail asal yang ditandatanganinya beserta suatu salinan nota keterangan dan dapatan yang diperakui dengan ditandatangani olehnya sebagai betul/sahih.

B. Koroner/Majistret, dengan bantuan Polis, hendaklah memaklumkan kepada keluarga/waris kadim tentang keputusan (verdict) Siasatan Kematian.

C. Koroner/Majistret boleh memberi salinan keputusan (verdict) dan nota prosiding Siasatan Kematian kepada mana-mana orang berkepentingan atas permohonan secara bertulis.

7. PROVISO AM

Apa-apa sebutan kepada perkataan 'Koroner/Majistret' dalam Garis Panduan ini hendaklah juga dibaca sebagai Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Koroner.

 

 

###The previous 2014 PRACTICE note , now replaced by Practice Note above

ARAHAN AMALAN BIL. 2 TAHUN 2014 PENGENDALIAN SIASATAN KEMATIAN (DEATH INQUIRY) SELARAS DENGAN PENUBUHAN MAHKAMAH KHAS KORONER [ REVOKED BY ARAHAN AMALAN BIL. 2 TAHUN 2019 ] Ruj. Tuan: Ruj. Kami: JK/MP 38 Jld. 6 Tarikh: 8 April 2014 Pengarah Mahkamah Negeri SELURUH MALAYSIA Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen SELURUH MALAYSIA Majistret SELURUH MALAYSIA Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah Rendah SELURUH MALAYSIA Penolong Pendaftar Mahkamah Rendah SELURUH MALAYSIA YBhg. Dato'/Datin/Tuan/Puan, ARAHAN AMALAN BIL. 2 TAHUN 2014 PENGENDALIAN SIASATAN KEMATIAN (DEATH INQUIRY) SELARAS DENGAN PENUBUHAN MAHKAMAH KHAS KORONER Adalah saya telah diarahkan oleh YAA Ketua Hakim Negara untuk memaklumkan bahawa Mahkamah Khas Koroner akan ditubuhkan di setiap ibu negeri dan mula berkuatkuasa pada 15 April 2014. 2. Mahkamah Khas Koroner ini akan menjalankan semua siasatan kematian bukan sahaja terhad kepada kes-kes kematian dalam tahanan polis, kematian dalam penjara, kematian di mana-mana pusat tahanan dan kematian orang tahanan di hospital tetapi juga kepada semua kes-kes kematian yang memerlukan satu siasatan dibuat menurut peruntukan seksyen 329(1) Kanun Tatacara Jenayah. 3. Mahkamah Khas Koroner akan dikendalikan oleh seorang Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen. 4. Mahkamah Khas Koroner ini juga akan mengendalikan kes-kes Laporan Mati Mengejut (LMM). 5. PENDAFTARAN KES DI MAHKAMAH KHAS KORONER 5.1 Kes-kes siasatan kematian yang difailkan hendaklah didaftarkan di Mahkamah Khas Koroner di negeri berkenaan menurut Kod berikut:- Kod 65 Kes-kes laporan mati mengejut (LMM) Kod 65A Kes-kes siasatan kematian 5.2 Sekiranya suatu kes laporan mati mengejut telah didaftarkan di bawah kod 65, namun koroner setelah meneliti laporan kematian dan mendapati bahawa satu siasatan kematian perlu dijalankan maka kes itu hendaklah didaftarkan semula di bawah kod 65A. 6. PEMINDAHAN KES-KES LAPORAN MATI MENGEJUT (LMM) 6.1 Kes-kes LMM yang didaftarkan sebelum 15 April 2014 yang masih belum diselesaikan di Mahkamah Majistret, hendaklah dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Khas Koroner Negeri serta merta. 6.2 Kes-kes tersebut hendaklah didaftarkan semula menurut perenggan 5.1 di atas. 7. SIASATAN KEMATIAN YANG SEDANG BERJALAN 7.1 Bagi kes-kes siasatan kematian yang sedang berjalan hendaklah dirujuk kepada ketua Pendaftar untuk arahan lanjut. 8. GARIS PANDUAN PENGEDALIAN SIASATAN KEMATIAN 8.1 Garis panduan dalam mengendalikan kes-kes sisatan kematian adalah sepertimana yang digariskan di dalam Lampiran A Arahan Amalan ini. 9. PEMERIKSAAN MAYAT 9.1 Bagi kes-kes mati mengejut di mana Hakim Mahkamah Khas Koroner perlu memeriksa mayat, Hakim Mahkamah Khas Koroner hendaklah juga mematuhi perkara-perkara berikut:- (a) Hakim Mahkamah Khas Koroner hendaklah hadir di tempat di mana mayat berada dan melakukan pemeriksaan dengan segera. (b) Sekiranya atas sebab-sebab yang tidak dapat dielakkan, Hakim Mahkamah Khas Koroner tidak dapat melaksanakan tugas seperti di perenggan (a), Pengarah Negeri boleh mengarahkan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen/Majistret di daerah berkenaan ataupun yang berhampiran untuk melaksanakan tugas pemeriksaan mayat tersebut. 10. PENGURUSAN KES SIASATAN KEMATIAN 10.1 Hakim Mahkamah Khas Koroner hendaklah menyelesaikan siasatan kematian dalam tempoh 9 bulan dari tarikh siasatan kematian diadakan. 10.2 Bagi pengurusan kes siasatan kematian, Arahan Amalan Bil. 2 Tahun 2012 adalah terpakai setakat mana yang bersesuaian. 11. PEMBATALAN ARAHAN AMALAN TERDAHULU 11.1 Dengan berkuat kuasanya Arahan Amalan ini, Practice Direction No. 1 of 2007 Guidelines On Inquest adalah dengan ini terbatal. 12. TARIKH KUATKUASA 12.1 Arahan Amalan ini berkuatkuasa mulai tarikh 15 April 2014. Sekian, terima kasih. "BERKHIDMAT UNTUK NEGARA" Saya yang menurut perintah, (AZIMAH OMAR) Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA s.k.: YAA Ketua Hakim Negara Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Peguam Negara Jabatan Peguam Negara No. 45 Persiaran Perdana Presint 4 62100, PUTRAJAYA YAA Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA YAA Hakim Besar Malaya Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA YAA Hakim Besar Sabah dan Sarawak Mahkamah Tinggi Kuching Jalan Gersik 93050 Petrajaya KUCHING, SARAWAK Timbalan Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Pendaftar Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Sabah dan Sarawak Mahkamah Tinggi Kuching Jalan Gersik 93050 Petrajaya KUCHING, SARAWAK Pendaftar Mahkamah Rendah Malaya Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Ketua Polis Negara Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia Bukit Aman 50560 KUALA LUMPUR Ketua Pesuruhjaya Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia Blok D6, Kompleks D Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan, Peti Surat 6000 62007, PUTRAJAYA Ketua Pengarah Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia Ibu Pejabat KKM Blok E1, E6, E7 & E10, Parcel Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan 62590 PUTRAJAYA Ketua Bahagian Pendakwaan Jabatan Peguam Negara PUTRAJAYA Ketua Bahagian Guaman Jabatan Peguam Negara PUTRAJAYA Peguam Besar Negeri Sarawak Tingkat 15 & 16 Wisma Bapa Malaysia Petra Jaya 93502 Kuching SARAWAK Peguam Besar Negeri Sabah Tingkat 8 & 9 Menara Tun Mustapha Teluk Likas Beg Berkunci 2054 88990 KOTA KINABALU SABAH Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri SELURUH MALAYSIA Ketua Unit Pendakwaan Negeri SELURUH MALAYSIA Pengarah Bahagian Pengurusan Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Ketua Bahagian Dasar, Latihan dan Perancangan Strategik Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Timbalan Pendaftar/Penolong Kanan Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi SELURUH MALAYSIA Ketua Bahagian Teknologi Maklumat Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Ketua Bahagian e-Kehakiman Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Pustakawan Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia Istana Kehakiman PUTRAJAYA Presiden Majlis Peguam Malaysia 13, 15 dan 17 Leboh Pasar Besar 50050, KUALA LUMPUR Pengerusi Persatuan Undang-Undang Sabah Tingkat 2, 58, Jalan Pantai Hainan Association Building 88000 Kota Kinabalu SABAH Pengerusi Persatuan Peguambela Sarawak Bilik Peguam, Kompleks Mahkamah Kuching Jalan Gersik, Petra Jaya 93050 Kuching SARAWAK Ketua Polis Negara Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri PERLIS Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri KEDAH Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri PULAU PINANG Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri PERAK Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri MELAKA Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri NEGERI SEMBILAN Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri JOHOR Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri SELANGOR Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri KUALA LUMPUR Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri PAHANG Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri KELANTAN Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri TERENGGANU Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri SABAH Ketua Polis Negeri Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Negeri SARAWAK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAMPIRAN A GUIDELINES ON INQUEST (RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN PART V11 SECTION 328-341A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) 1. What is an inquest (a) It is not like a trial; (b) The are no parties to prosecute and to defend; (c) It is only an inquiry by a Magistrate as to the cause of death and the Prosecuting Officer is there not to prosecute anyone but only to assist the Court with the examination of witnesses for the purpose of giving evidence; (d) A defence counsel present at an inquest is not there to defend anyone, but only to look after the interest of those who engage him. Whilst he has no right to speak as of right, this right seldom becomes an issue because the court normally gives such indulgence whenever it is asked; (e) Although addressing the Court without permission is not contempt, it is certainly not polite to do so without permission. In polite circles such as the legal profession, this simple etiquette is expected; (f) A Magistrate/Coroner shall not express any opinion on any matter until the conclusion of the inquest; (g) There is no conviction or punishment at the end of it. 2. Matter to be ascertained at Inquest The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely at ascertaining the following matter, namely:- (a) who the deceased was; (b) how, when and where the deceased came by his death; (c) particulars for the time being required by the Registration Act to be registered concerning the death of persons; (d) the person(s) who carried out the act(s) or omission(s) causing the death, where such evidence is available, without however making any finding on the criminal liability of such person(s). 3. When should an inquest be held? A. When an inquest must be held The Magistrate must hold an inquest if:- (a) any person dies while in custody of the police (section 334 CPC); or (b) any person dies while in the care, or in circumstances that raise doubt about the deceased's care; or (c) The Public Prosecutor directs a Magistrate to arrange for and inquest to be held into the death (section 334 CPC to be read with section 334 and 329 CPC). B. When an inquest may be held An Inquest may be held into a reportable death if the Magistrate considers it desirable to hold an inquest (section 334 CPC) in cases of persons who dies whilst in a psychiatric hospital or prison; C. When an inquest must not be held or continued (Section 333(3) CPC) (1) Someone has been charged with an offence in which the question whether the accused caused the death may be in issue. (2) If the Magistrate is informed before an inquest is started, that criminal proceedings will be brought against any person, then the Magistrate must not start an inquest until after the end of the criminal proceedings, including any appeal that may be brought. D. Categories of cases in which an inquest should usually be held (1) Any death where there is such uncertainty or conflict of evidence as to justify the use of the judicial forensic process. (2) Any death in which there is likelihood that an inquest will uncover important systemic defects or risks not already known about. (3) Any death in which the views of family or other significant members of the public are such that an inquest is likely to assist maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, health services or other public agencies. (4) Any death that when grouped with others that have occurred in similar circumstances indicates that there may be an unexpected increase of danger in a particular location, area, family, industry or activity. (5) Any workplace death in which industrial processes or activities are implicated. (6) Any disaster involving multiple deaths. (7) Any death from self harm in which it is not possible to exclude the involvement of a third party in procuring the death or in failing to prevent it. PRE INQUEST A. Viewing Body Of Deceased 1. When the Magistrate is notified of any custidial death under section 329 or custidial death under section 334 CPC, the Magistrate should: * With a medical officer, view and examine the body in situ, take note of any injury or marks on the body; * Obtain information pertaining to the discovery of the body, including questioning cellmates of the deceased and other relevant persons (in cases of custodial deaths); * Draw sketch plan of then scene and position of the body after securing the scene from any interference and take note of any other matter/things found in the vicinity of the body; * Obtain copies of the lock up diaries or any relevant written documentations which will provide information about the movement of the deceased in custody before the death (in cases of custodial deaths); * After ensuring the scene from any interference, ensure that the body is not moved from its original position. In the event the scene has been tampered from its original position, an explanation must be sought from the relevant persons/authorities; * Enquire into the reasons, if there was a delay in notifying the magistrate of the death; * Issue order to a medical officer to make a post mortem examination of such body; Whatever ovservations made should be noted down and these form part of the Magistrate's notes for the inquest. 2. The Magistrate with the assistance of the police should: * Inform as soon as possible the family/next of kin/other interested persons about the death of the deceased; * Inform the family/next of kin/interested persons of any post mortem to be carried out and the reasons for the post mortem. 3. The Magistrate with the assistance of the police (who would be liaising with the pathologist), should try to ensure that the body is released to the family/next of kin for burial at the earliest opportunity provided that the necessary investigations and/or post mortem for the delay in releasing the body of the deceased should be recorded in the notes of the Magistrate. B. Order of Post Mortem The Magistrate shall direct the Government Medical Officer to do a post mortem and investigate and subsequently draw up a report of: * The apparent cause of death, the wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may relate to the cause of death; or * The person, if any who caused the death and stating what manner and what weapon or instrument, if any, was used. The report shall be signed by the officer by whom it was drawn up and the officer shall as soon as may be, forward the report of the apparent cause of death to the Magistrate. A Magistrate shall commence an inquiry into the death as soon as possible after the notification of the report from the Government Medical Officer. C. Notice of an Inquest The Magistrate should arrange to notify the family members/next of kin regarding the holding of an inquest, as to the date, hour and place of inquest. A minimum of 2 weeks notice should be given. As for the first mention date, a maximum of 3 weeks will be given for parties to appear before the Magistrate, calculate from the date of the receipt of the report from the Government Medical Officer. INQUEST A. Protocols for examining witnesses The Magistrate who sits as a Coroner has control of the proceedings, and therefore, it is the Magistrate who shall examine the witnesses, to be followed by other who have the right to participate in the inquest. The Magistrate is assisted by a Prosecuting Officer (a police officer or a Deputy Public Prosecutor). B. Entitlement to examine witnesses There are no 'parties' to an inquest as there are in accusatorial or adversarial proceedings such as a trial. Instead there are only 'interested persons'. The Magistrate should exercise his discretion to determine who shall have the right to examine the witnesses. C. Persons who have the right to examine withnesses (a) A parent, child, spouse and any personal representative of the deceased; (b) Any person whose act or omission or that of his agent or servant may, in the opinion of the coroner, have caused, or contributed to, the death of the deceased; (c) An inspector appointed by, or a representative of, an enforcing authority, or any person appointed by a government department to attend the inquest; (d) Any other person who, in the opinion of the coroner, is a properly interested person. D. Disclosure of Documents The Magistrate have the discretion with regard to the release of documents. This discretion should in general be exercised in favour of release. E. Procedure and rules of evidence not to be strictly applied The procedure and rules of evidence which are suitable for the accusatorial process are unsuitable for the inquisitorial process. Therefore, the Magistrate should not entertain any attempt by any of the interested parties to dispute the credibility of the witnesses through impeachment proceedings, for instance. Evidence in the form of guesswork should no be allowed. F. Self Incrimination No witness at an inquest shall be obliged to answer any question tending to incriminate himself Where it appears to the Magistrate that a witness has been asked such a question, the magistrate shall inform the withness that he may refuse to answer. G. Findings A magistrate who conducted an inquest must if possible find:- (a) Who the deceased person is; and (b) How the person died; and (c) When the person died; and (d) where the person died; and (e) what caused the person died; and (f) who, if any was/were the person(s) who carried out the act(s) or omission(s) causing the death, without however making any finding on the criminal liability of such person(s). The Magistrate shall transmit such findings to he Public Prosecutor (section 338 CPC) H. Verdict No verdict shall be farmed in such a way to appear to determine any question of:- (a) Criminal liability on the part of a named person; or (b) Civil liability At the conclusion of the Inquest, the Magistrate must deliver a verdict on any one of the following:- (a) An open verdict; (b) A verdict of misadventure (c) Death by person or persons unknown I. Place of Ingust Shall be open to the public but the Magistrate may, on special grounds of public policy or expediency exclude the public/persons in particular at any stage of the inquiry. (section 338(2) CPC). J. Inquest should be prompt Public interest requires that Inquiries into deaths should be held more promptly than has been the case in the past. Inquests should be done at the very earliest moment after death. Inquests should be best condeucted continuously until the end with the most minimal of postpenements in between. POST INQUEST A. The Magistrate then transmits to the Public Prosecutor the original of the evidence and finding duly autheticated by his signature or a copy of such evidence and finding certified under his hand as correct. B. The Magistrate, with the assistance of the police, should inform the family/next of kin of the verdict. C. The Magistrate has a discretion to provide a copy of the verdict and notes of evidence to interested persons upon application by them. 4. Any reference to the words 'Magistrate' or 'Magistrate/Coroner' in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above shall be read as Hakim Mahkamah Khas Koroner.

PRACTICE DIRECTION NO. 1 OF 2007 GUIDELINES ON INQUEST Ruj. Tuan: Ruj. Kami: Tarikh: 5 January 2007 Semua Hakim Kanan Mahkamah Sesyen/Majistret Semua Majistret SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA Dato'/Tuan/Puan, PRACTICE DIRECTION NO. 1 OF 2007 GUIDELINES ON INQUEST The guidelines below shall be followed in relation to Inquests in the Magistrates' Courts with effect from 1 February 2007. (RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN PART V11, CAP XXX11 SECTION 328-341A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) 1. What is an Inquest? (a) It is not like a trial; (b) There are no parties to prosecute and to defend; (c) It is only an inquiry by a Magistrate as to the cause of death and the Prosecuting Officer is there not to prosecute anyone but only to assist the court with the examination of witnesses for the purpose of giving evidence; (d) A defence counsel present at an inquest is not there to defend anyone, but only to look after the interest of those who engage him. Whilst he has no right to speak as of right, this right seldom becomes an issue because the court normally gives such indulgence whenever it is asked; (e) Although addressing the court without permission is not contempt, it is certainly not polite to do so without permission. In polite circles such as the legal profession, this simple etiquette is expected; (f) A Magistrate/ Coroner shall not express any opinion on any matter until the conclusion of the inquest; (g) There is no conviction or punishment at the end of it. 2. Matters to be ascertained at Inquest The proceedings and evidence at an Inquest shall be directed solely at ascertaining the following matters, namely:- (a) who the deceased was; (b) how, when and where the deceased came by his death; (c) particulars for the time being required by the Registration Act to be registered concerning the death of persons; (d) the person(s) who carried out the act(s) or omission(s) causing the death, where such evidence is available, without however making any finding on the criminal liability of such person(s). 3. When should an inquest be held? A. When an inquest must be held 1) The Magistrate must hold an inquest if:- (a) any person dies while in the custody of the police (section 334 CPC); or (b) any person dies while in the care, or in circumstances that raise doubt about the deceased's care; or (c) The Public Prosecutor directs a Magistrate to arrange for an inquest to be held into the death (section 339 CPC to be read with section 328 and 329 CPC) B. When an inquest may be held An inquest may be held into a reportable death if the Magistrate considers it desirable to hold an inquest (section 334 CPC) in cases of person who dies whilst in a psychiatric hospital or prison; C. When an inquest must not be held or continued (Section 333(3) CPC) (1) Someone has been charged with an offence in which the question whether the accused caused the death may be in issue. (2) If the Magistrate is informed before an inquest is started, that criminal proceedings will be brought against any person, then the Magistrate must not start an inquest until after the end of the criminal proceedings, including any appeal that may be brought. D. Categories of cases in which an inquest should usually be held (1) Any death where there is such uncertainty or conflict of evidence as to justify the use of the judicial forensic process, (2) Any death in which there is a likelihood that an inquest will uncover important systemic defects or risks not already known about, (3) Any deaths in which the views of the family or other significant members of the public are such that an inquest is likely to assist maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, health services or other public agencies, (4) Any death that when grouped with others that have occurred in similar circumstances indicates that there may be an unexpected increase of danger in a particular location, area, family, industry or activity, (5) Any workplace death in which industrial processes or activities are implicated, (6) Any disaster involving multiple deaths, (7) Any death from self harm in which it is not possible to exclude the involvement of a third party in procuring the death or in failing to prevent it. PRE INQUEST A. Viewing Body Of Deceased 1. When the Magistrate is notified of any non custodial death under section 329 or custodial death under section 334 CPC, the Magistrate should: * with a medical officer, view and examine the body in situ, take note of any injury or marks on the body; * obtain information pertaining to the discovery of the body, including questioning cellmates of the deceased and other relevant persons (in cases of custodial deaths); * draw a sketch plan of the scene and position of the body after securing the scene from any interference and take note of any other matter/things found in the vicinity of the body; * obtain copies of the lock up diaries or any relevant written documentation which will provide information about the movement of the deceased in custody before the death (in cases of custodial death); * after ensuring the scene from any interference, ensure that the body is not moved from its original position. In the event the scene has been tampered with and the body has been moved from its original position, an explanation must be sought from the relevant persons/authorities; * enquire into the reasons, if there was a delay in notifying the Magistrate of the death; * issue order to a medical officer to make a post mortem examination of such body; Whatever observations made should be noted down and these form part of the Magistrate's notes for the inquest. 2. The Magistrate with the assistance of the police should: * inform as soon as possible the family/next of kin/other interested persons about the death of the deceased; * inform the family/next of kin/interested persons of any post mortem to be carried out and the reasons for the postmortem. 3. The Magistrate with the assistance of the police (who should be liaising with the pathologist), should try to ensure that the body is released to the family/next of kin for burial at the earliest opportunity provided that the necessary investigations and/ or postmortem for the purpose of an inquest has been duly carried out. Reasons for the delay in releasing the body of the deceased should be recorded in the notes of the Magistrate. B. Order of Postmortem The Magistrate shall direct the Government Medical Officer to do a postmortem and investigate and subsequently draw up a report of: * the apparent cause of death, the wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may relate to the cause of the death; or * the person, if any, who caused the death and stating what manner and what weapon or instrument, if any, was used. The report shall be signed by the officer by whom it was drawn up and the officer shall as soon as may be, forward the report of the apparent cause of death to the Magistrate. A Magistrate shall commence an inquiry into the death as soon as possible after the notification of the report from the Government Medical Officer. C. Notice of an Inquest The Magistrate should arrange to notify the family members/ next of kin regarding the holding of an inquest, as to the date, hour and place of inquest. A minimum of 2 weeks notice should be given. As for the first mention date, a maximum of 3 weeks will be given for parties to appear before the Magistrate, calculated from the date of the receipt of the report from the Government Medical Officer. INQUEST A. Protocols for examining witnesses The Magistrate who sits as a Coroner has control of the proceedings, and therefore, it is the Magistrate who shall examine firstly the witnesses, to be followed by others who have the right to participate in the inquest. The Magistrate is assisted by a Prosecuting Officer (a police officer or a Deputy Public Prosecutor). B. Entitlement to examine witnesses There are no 'parties' to an inquest as there are in accusatorial -or adversarial proceedings such as a trial. Instead there are only 'interested persons'. The Magistrate should exercise his discretion to determine who shall have the right to examine the witnesses. C. Persons who have the right to examine witnesses (a) A parent, child, spouse and any personal representative of the deceased; (b) Any person whose act or omission or that of his agent or servant may, in the opinion of the coroner, have caused, or contributed to, the death of the deceased; (c) An inspector appointed by, or a representative of, an enforcing authority, or any person appointed by a government department to attend the inquest; (d) Any other person who, in the opinion of the coroner, is a properly interested person. D. Disclosure of Documents The Magistrate have the discretion with regard to the release of documents. This discretion should in general be exercised in favour of release. E. Procedure and rules of evidence not to be strictly applied The procedure and rules of evidence which are suitable for the accusatorial process are unsuitable for inquisitorial process. Therefore, the Magistrate should not entertain any attempt by any of the interested parties to dispute the credibility of the witnesses through impeachment proceedings, for instance. Evidence in the form of guesswork should not be allowed. F. Self Incrimination No witness at an inquest shall be obliged to answer any question tending to incriminate himself. Where it appears to the Magistrate that a witness has been asked such a question, the Magistrate shall inform the witness that he may refuse to answer. G. Findings A magistrate who conducted an inquest must if possible find:- (a) who the deceased person is; and (b) how the person died; and (c) when the person died; and (d) where the person died; and (e) what caused the person to die; and (f) who, if any, was/were the person(s) who carried out the act(s) or omission(s) causing the death, without however making any finding on the criminal liability of such person(s). The Magistrate shall transmit such findings to the Public Prosecutor (section 338 CPC) H. Verdict No verdict shall be framed in such a way to appear to determine any question of:- (a) criminal liability on the part of a named person; or (b) civil liability At the conclusion of the Inquest, the Magistrate must deliver a verdict on any one of the following: (a) An open verdict; (b) A verdict of misadventure (c) Death by person or persons unknown. I. Place of Inquest Shall be open to the public but the Magistrate may, on special grounds of public policy or expediency exclude the public/persons in particular at any stage of the inquiry. (section 338 (2) CPC) J. Inquest should be prompt Public interest requires that Inquiries into deaths should be held more promptly than has been the case in the past. Inquests should be done at the very earliest moment after death. Inquests should be best conducted continuously until the end with the most minimal of postponements in between. POST INQUEST A. The Magistrate then transmits to the Public Prosecutor the original of the evidence and finding duly authenticated by his signature or a copy of such evidence and finding certified under his hand as correct. B. The Magistrate, with the assistance of the police, should inform the family/next of kin of the verdict. C. The Magistrate has a discretion to provide a copy of the verdict and notes of evidence to interested persons upon application by them. (TAN SRI DATO' SITI NORMA YAAKOB) Chief Judge of Malaya Palace of Justice PUTRAJAYA s.k.: Y.A.A. Ketua Hakim Negara Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia PUTRAJAYA Y.A.A. Hakim Besar Sabah & Sarawak Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia PUTRAJAYA Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia PUTRAJAYA Pengerusi Majlis Peguam Malaysia KUALA LUMPUR