Cops Unacceptable Practices Highlighted At Meeting Bar Tells Members

---

The Bar Council told of instances when PDRM’s investigating officers refused to accept service of documents, imposed conditions or sought payment.
The Bar Council has complained to the Attorney-General’s Chambers of the lengthy delays experienced in cases involving prosecution under Sections 41 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act 1987.The Bar Council has informed the police of the difficulties faced by legal practitioners in serving documents to the force’s investigating officers (IOs), insisting that some of the officers’ practices were “unacceptable”.
At a meeting with representatives of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the police in August, the council highlighted instances of IOs refusing to accept the documents, imposing conditions and requesting payments.
“The Bar Council reiterated that such practices are unacceptable,” its criminal law committee co-chairs Ravi Chandran Subash Chandran and Vivek Sukumaran said in a circular to members.
A lawyer told FMT the documents involved include subpoenas taken out by legal firms requiring IOs to attend court hearings as witnesses.
“This is where some of them refuse or impose conditions such as reimbursement of board and lodging expenses. There are a few who even ask for payment as an inducement to attend,” said the lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Another practitioner, who also asked not to be named, said lawyers also tend to be given the runaround when attempting to secure pre-trial disclosure of material evidence and other information under Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), a statutory obligation placed on the prosecution.
“This includes investigation reports and other documentary evidence that will form part of the prosecution’s case,” he said.
The Bar Council said police representatives at the meeting gave assurance that the matter would be escalated internally.
“Members are encouraged to lodge formal complaints through PDRM’s JIPS application, or to the relevant Officer-in-Charge of Police District (OCPD) to facilitate prompt investigation,” the circular, dated Oct 22, said.
On another matter, the Bar Council also raised the problem of delays in the prosecution of certain road transport offences, with some cases not commenced even after five years.
The Bar Council said the cases involved prosecutions under Sections 41 (causing death by reckless or dangerous driving) and 43 (careless and inconsiderate driving) of the Road Transport Act 1987.
“The AGC representatives cited pending chemist, post-mortem, or forensic reports as common causes of delay. Members are advised to write directly to the public prosecutor’s office for updates on pending matters for review,” the circular read.
The meeting was attended by Kamal Baharin Omar and Badius Zaman Ahmad on behalf of the AGC, with SAC Abdul Rahman Atan representing the police. The Bar Council’s team was led by vice-president Anand Raj. - FMT

---