I am alarmed and shocked at the sentiments expressed by the writer in this letter 'Don't let lawyers use 'Plan B''. We are not talking about fiction here. These are people's real lives that we are dealing with. It cannot be changed in the next episode.

When someone is accused of a crime, especially when arrested and interrogated without the presence of a counsel, this will inevitably lead to the problem of verifying the validity of the cautioned statement.

To me it is very simple. If an accused signs a cautioned statement and later withdraws, this only can mean two things:

1. That he/she was forced to make that statement while under coercion and 'bullying' of the interrogator or

2. He has changed his mind later after talking to his counsel.

Either way, no cautioned statement should be taken down before the accused has a chance to talk to his counsel. If the police do their work properly, there are no need for confessions. Evidence should be sufficient and abundant to convict a person.

If one is to notice recent cases in Malaysia, it is normally the poor and the downtrodden who seem to make confessions and later withdraw them in court. Could this be due to them not knowing what their rights are?

If confessions cannot be questioned in court then why bother to have a trial once an accused has confessed? The prosecution can just post the signed and sealed confession to the attorney-general's chambers and get a conviction.

It is very easy being righteous and take a high ground on this matter but remember, what if these things were to happen to us? I don't know how I would react if someone 'coerced' me to sign a confession and later when I have recovered, I wish to tell the court that I want to challenge it.

The best way to resolve this is that the police must not in any situation get a signed cautioned statement from a suspect until the suspect has had access to legal counsel. Apart form ensuring access to legal support for the suspect, the cautioned statement's validity at a later date will also not be challenged.

It is the prosecution's fault that a lot of time is wasted during court cases as they seem not to follow the sprit and letter of the law. Don't blame the defence team if this happens. The role of the defence team is to ensure that the court arrives at the right decision, not to rush through cases so that others can get on with other daily work.

Put yourself in the dock - what would you say if your confession was not voluntary? These safeguards are extremely important to ensure that the wrong person is not sent to the prison just because the rest of us want to save time and appear tough on crime. I will not wish that on anyone.

Sometimes the justice system lets the guilty ones go free but a crucial factor is that it must never ever send an innocent person to prison.