INSPECTOR-GENERAL of Police Abdul Hamid Bador should explain why an inquest is preferred to a criminal investigation into possible unlawful actions by police who killed three allegedly armed robbers, lawyer N. Surendran said.

The Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) adviser said an inquest is usually only held when there is uncertainty over the cause of death.

“Where a criminal investigation by police can determine what has happened, there is no need for an inquest,” Surendran told The Malaysian Insight.

On September 14 in Batu Arang, Gombak, Selangor, three men were shot dead by police after a high-speed chase. The police said two of the men, Thavaselvan Govindasamy and Maghendran Santhirasegaran were gang members who were wanted, and the third, Janarthanan was Thavaselvan’s brother-in law and a Sri Lankan and British permanent resident who had overstayed his visa.

“We don’t have enough facts to determine why the authorities prefer an inquest,” said Surendran.

“The police must clearly explain why an inquest is preferable.

“Essentially the IGSO (IGP’s Standing Orders) does not allow the discharge of firearms unless there is threat to life of police or public, or of grievous harm.

“Only a thorough and independent investigation can establish whether there is wrongdoing by police.”

Police say the driver of the car had defied an order to pull over, causing the cops to give chase and resulting in a shoot-out that saw the three of them killed.

The families of the deceased said Janarthanan’s wife, Moganambal Govindasamy was also in the car but is now missing. Police deny seeing a woman in the car with the three men.

Janarthanan’s family also dispute police claims that he was involved in a burglary in 2016 as he was in the UK at the time.

IGP Hamid said on Saturday that police would seek an inquest into the deaths, while expressing confidence that his men had acted in accordance with standard operating procedure (SOP) for discharging firearms.

Yesterday, lawyer P. Uthayakumar who is acting for the victims’ families, said police should explain the gunshot wounds on the bodies, which were in the chest for Janarthanan and Magendran and in the chest and head or face for Thavaselvan.

Thavaselvan also had bruises on his head and body, and a broken hand and tooth, Uthayakumar said in an open letter to Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

Surendran said that if the killing was unlawful, the family could bring a civil suit against the police and the government which is apart from any criminal prosecution that may be instituted by the Attorney-General. 

He noted the difficulty in investigating the shootings without a body like the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

LFL director Melissa Sasidaran also said an inquest would only be affective if police are fully transparent about the incident.

“If the culture of cover up continues within the police force, then it will be pointless for an inquest. 

“Because the whole point of an inquest is to determine what had happened, as opposed to a trial where they are seeking to find if a person is guilty or not guilty.

“It is also to hear all parties such as the families and the police on their versions of what had transpired.”

The families do not have to wait for an inquest in order to take civil action suit against those involved in the shootout, she added.

“If there is a breach of SOP, then the police can be charged. The families will have to see what evidence they have and decide with their lawyers. 

“They can file for negligence, abuse of power and breach of SOP, but it depends on what evidence they have.” – September 23, 2019.