The late Teoh Beng Hock's family has given the prime minister three days to honour the promise to act on those responsible for causing the DAP aide's death.

Teoh's younger sister Lee Lan ( right ) said Najib Abdul Razak had made this promise to act, and should do so now following the Court of Appeal decision today ruling out suicide.

In the first judgement read out, it was ruled that Teoh's death "is due to unlawful acts of persons unknown, including the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers".

Therefore with today's decision being final, she said it is incumbent on the government to take the action it has promised.

"We give Najib, the inspector-general of police and the attorney-general three days to take appropriate action.

" Failing which, the family will resort to take action," Lee Lan told reporters in response to the verdict.

The family did not reveal what sort of action they would initiate but their lawyer Gobind Singh Deo promised to inform the media when a decision was made.

The family has also taken a civil suit against the MACC and government following Teoh's death and it is scheduled to be heard in November.

The Court of Appeal overruled the open verdicts made by the coroner's inquest and the Shah Alam High Court, and ruled that Teoh's death was not suicide .

It ruled Teoh's death was caused by multiple injuries from a fall from the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam, as a result of "unlawful act or acts of persons unknown".

Justice Mah Weng Kwai,who was one of the three-member bench that made the unanimous decision, ruled the death to be custodial death, despite earlier claims that the MACC had released Teoh from the interrogation at the time of his death.

Teoh’s body was found sprawled on the fifth floor ledge of Plaza Masalam on July 16, 2009. He was scheduled to marry in October 2009, and is survived by his fiancee and now four-year-old son.

The government has also held a royal commission of inquiry into Teoh’s death.

‘Lower burden of proof’

But according to Gobind the decision today by the Court of Appeal carries more weight as today’s decision carries ‘more force of law’ compared to an RCI, as it shows there is no suicide, no accidental death and his death is as a result of persons unknown and specifically the MACC during investigations.

Describing today’s decision as a landmark decision, Gobind said all three judges agreed with them that the burden of proof in an inquest is not beyond reasonable which is a higher threshold but on a balance of probabilities.

“This should be the standard applied in all on-going inquests and future inquests. I would like to urge the AG to re-look into reviewing other inquest cases which had been decided.

“This is the rightful test as you cannot expect ordinary individuals to investigate based on the standards required by the police. Ordinary Malaysians do not have the resources or powers that the police have. To expect the ordinary person to come to court in an inquest and provide evidence which is as high a standard as the police makes the entire process to be disillussioning,” he said.

No ordinary person, Gobind said, can do this and the judgment today recognises the impact an inquest has on individuals as to the cause of death of their loved ones.

He said an inquest, as the judge had rightfully noted, is a fact-finding mission to determine the cause of death or those liable for causing the death.

Gobind, who is also Puchong MP, said he will also pressure parliament to ensure that action be taken.

Justice Hamid Sultan in his judgment noted that  it is a miscarriage of justice and fair play to say nobody is culpable when there is clear evidence to say otherwise.

“‘MACC’ or the relevant officers, being a responsible body, simply cannot disclaim liability when its officers had taken the deceased into custody and kept the witness throughout, engaging in oppressive conduct which resulted in his death.

“In ordinary circumstances if the oppressors had been lay persons they would have been charged by the police and/or Attorney-General’s Chambers with murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder to be read with section 34  of the Penal Code relating to common intention,” he said in his written judgment.

Besides Justice Mah and Justice Hamid Sultan, the third judge who was leading the panel, Justice Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof, slightly departed in his views of an inquest.

While Justice Mah and Hamid Sultan disagreed that an open verdict cannot be returned in an inquest, Justice Ariff said it can but agreed in this case the open verdict made was wrong.

They judges further ruled that the bruise mark on Teoh’s neck must have been incurred while the deceased was at the MACC office as his lawyer M Manoharan did not see such marks when he accompanied the political aide.

All three judges urged the police and AG to re-open the case and bring the culprits to the book to uphold the administration of justice.