AN inquest is a proceeding under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). It means an inquiry by a magistrate.

The inquiry is to determine when, where, how and after what manner the deceased came by his or her death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of the death.

Since an inquest is a proceeding under the CPC, let’s briefly look at what it says on death while in police custody.

Section 344 states when a person dies while in the custody of the police, the officer who had the custody of that person shall immediately give intimation of such death to the nearest magistrate, and the magistrate or some other magistrate shall hold an inquiry into the cause of death.

So, the inquest is mandatory. I am therefore curious that Rama Ramanathan should question why the police would ask the public prosecutor (PP) to order an inquest into Ganapathy’s death and why the police would want one.

According to reports, Ganapathy died during treatment at Selayang Hospital after he was sent there from police custody.

He was arrested on February 24 to assist in investigations into his sibling’s alleged crimes. He was said to have spent 12 days in police custody, from February 24 to March 8, before being admitted to hospital.

He succumbed to his injuries on April 18 after spending more than a month at the hospital’s intensive care unit.

On the facts, he did not die “while in the custody of the police.” That explains why the police have said that they would ask the PP to order an inquest into Ganapathy’s death.

The call was similarly made by Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo. A lawyer by profession, Gobind rightly referred to section 339(1) of the CPC, which empowers the PP to direct a magistrate to hold an inquiry into the cause of, and the circumstances connected with, any death such as the death of Ganapathy.

I would agree with Gobind that the law is already in place “to meet and address cases like [Ganapathy’s]. There is no reason not to make full use of these provisions and to do so now in order to ensure justice is done for Ganapathy.”

Admittedly, the law needs improvement, if not wholesale reform. Except where death occurs while in the custody of the police or the PP directs the magistrate (above), an inquest is not mandatory if the magistrate is satisfied with the cause of the death.

However, the magistrate must state his or her reasons and report to the PP together with all reports and documents connected with the matter.

An inquest or a report to the PP is also not necessary if criminal proceedings have been instituted against any person concerned with the death of the deceased (section 333(3) of CPC).

Even section 339(1) does not mandate the PP to direct the magistrate to hold an inquest because the word used is “may” and not “shall”.

While section 334 makes it mandatory for an inquest for death in police custody, it does not stipulate the time frame as to when the inquest shall commence.

So, family members and next of kin of the deceased are usually left in the dark about whether and when an inquest would be held.

There are other shortcomings – numerous if you like – in the law on inquest in the CPC. This explains why the Malaysian Bar has been in quest for an inquest law in the shape of a Coroners Act for many years now.

The latest pitch in the quest was in its president’s press release which describes death in custody as a “national affliction that must be eliminated”.

This follows the death of 21-year-old Surendren Shanker on May 27 at Kluang Hospital, following complaints of severe abdominal pain after being held in Simpang Renggam prison.

A week earlier Sivabalan Subramaniam, a 43-year-old security guard, died in custody at Gombak police headquarters.

Three so-called deaths in police custody in a matter of weeks. Pardon the categorisation of death. Death resulting from any unlawful act or omission of any person is a deprivation of life.

The right to life is fundamental. A Coroners Act to thoroughly investigate each and every such death is timely.

The role of an inquest officer (coroner) should rightly be strengthened so that greater clarity can be provided in the inquiry process. As the Bar president said, “deaths in custody are an affront to civil society and to natural justice, and such tragedies must be prevented from happening in the future.”

So yes, it’s time for a Coroners Act like those of Canada (Coroners Act 1990), Australia (Coroners Act 1997), New Zealand (Coroners Act 2006), the United Kingdom (Coroners and Justice Act 2009), and Singapore (Coroners Act 2010, Revised 2012).

Canada seemingly has the oldest statute on inquest among the five. Perhaps not surprisingly there have been recent calls for an “overhaul” of the law and system.

Singapore’s Coroners Act was enacted in 2010 and revised in 2012. That is a decade ago.

Over the same decade, there have been four attorneys-general (A-G), with the immediate past A-G someone from the Bar.

Will the Malaysia public’s quest for such a Coroners Act remain elusive?

If a former member of the Bar could not see to the quest for an inquest law seeing the light of day, perhaps a former member of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the judiciary can.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.