COMMENT | Some justice in Ipoh police shooting victim case

COMMENT | An important decision at the Ipoh High Court went unnoticed as the nation was recovering from Covid-19. On July 3, the court set a precedent when it intervened in the decision of the deputy public prosecutor not to hold an inquest into the police shooting death of P Kathir Oli nine years ago. The family had wanted closure and justice but all these years, even getting an inquest seemed impossible as legal loopholes were used to obstruct the path to justice for Kathir.

Kathir’s brother had filed a criminal application through lawyer M Puravalen, asking the court to order the magistrate to hold an inquest into Kathir’s death. In his decision, Justice Anselm Charles Fernandis cited “great injustice” as grounds when he ordered that the investigation papers on the death of Kathir be forwarded to the magistrate to decide whether or not to hold an inquest.

On Sept 15, 2011, Kathir was shot dead by a policeman outside a pub in Ipoh. The deceased and his friends were refused entry into the pub and an argument had taken place between him and the pub owner. There was a rough language used on both sides, some pushing and shoving; and then suddenly, a gunshot that killed Kathir instantly. The one who fired the shot turned out to be a plainclothes police officer.

Kathir’s three friends who had been with him were arrested and remanded for 11 days. The next morning, less than ten hours later, the Perak police chief related at a press conference the bizarre story of how Kathir was shot dead while he and his friends were in the act of robbing a pub armed with parangs, and how his three friends had been arrested and remanded on charges of armed robbery and attempted murder.

The media carried this sensational piece of news widely, adding further pain to the grief of a family mourning the sudden and brutal death of a loved one.

There was no inquest held on Kathir's death. During the hearing, the court heard that following the police investigations into the death, the so-called sudden death report was never forwarded to the magistrate to decide whether or not to hold an inquest.

Instead, the DPP made a decision that no inquest would be held as they were going to charge three men (Kathir’s friends) in connection to the death. This decision was supposedly in line with Section 333(3), a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (but the judge pointed out that the whole of section 333 was the jurisdiction of the magistrate and not the DPP).

The DPP’s justification for denying an inquest defied logic as the charges against the three had no connection with the death and failed to explain how and why the death occurred. The three men were to be charged for causing mischief and for preventing a public servant from doing his duty. How were these acts connected to Kathir's death?

Appeals were made by the family to the DPP’s office and Suhakam to urge for an inquest be held but the decision not to hold an inquest remained.

A man had been unlawfully shot dead and no one was held accountable, and stories had been spun to justify the shooting. So a decision was made to challenge the decision of the DPP, and a criminal application was filed at the Ipoh High Court for an order for the DPP or magistrate to hold an inquest.

Puravalen, a well-known criminal and custodial deaths lawyer, and a strong advocate for independent police complaints and misconduct commission, acted for Kathir’s family. He was assisted by Wong Hong Yi.

Two objections were raised by the public prosecutor during the hearing - that the family should have filed a judicial review of the decision of the DPP not to initiate an inquest, and that the discretion of the public prosecutor cannot be questioned. But it was argued that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to intervene where there was clear injustice.

There were so many contradictions and discrepancies in and between the versions of the two parties on what took place on the night of the shooting. Some of the disputed facts are as follows. According to the family, Kathir (above) and his friends had gone to the pub for a meal and drinks. The scuffle and shooting took place on the road outside the pub where the car was parked, and this was corroborated by the post mortem report that stated that the body of the deceased was found on the road.

The DPP’s version held that the deceased and his friends were parang-wielding robbers at a pub; that the shooting was inside the pub; and that the release of the gunshot was accidental. The post mortem report showed that the gunshot was released at a contact distance as the muzzle of the gun was in contact with the body of the deceased. Surely an inquest was warranted?

The reduction of charges from armed robbery and attempted murder to those of causing mischief and deterring a public servant’s duty; and the disappearance of the parangs from the charges later on, raised serious questions about the credibility of the investigations.

The tireless efforts by Kathir’s brother and family, assisted by Parti Sosialis Malaysia have taken us a step closer to the truth.

The magistrate will decide if an inquest is warranted. For the family and for the society, an inquest will be a chance to clear Kathir’s name - a successful businessperson with no criminal record - was he a pub robber or an innocent citizen who died needlessly at the hands of a law enforcer acting with impunity.

Hopefully, the inquest will finally find its way to the courts. Hopefully, the truth will finally be revealed.

RANI RASIAH is a central committee member of PSM.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

No inquest for fatal Ipoh police shooting

PSM: Contractor shot dead by cops at close range

Nora Anne's family welcomes inquest into her death

IGP denies cops disrespected outcome of Adib's inquest with new probe