ONE of my readers asked: “If Ganapathy had died in London, as he did in Kuala Lumpur, who would investigate his death?”

First, let us be clear about “as he did.” Ganapathy did not die in police custody. He died soon after contact with the police.

It has been alleged that the police released him because they didn’t want to be responsible for a man who had become seriously ill while he was in their custody.

The allegation is believable, because in 2005, the Police Commission said pretty much the same thing.

We know from a police statement that the police did not classify Ganapathy’s death in any of the categories that would mandate a report to a Malaysian coroner, let alone an inquest.

So, according to officialdom, Ganapathy died while receiving treatment in a hospital.

Thanks to the police report made by his family and media coverage, we know he died soon after contact with the police. For my purpose here, those are the circumstances in which he died.

So, let us suppose he had died in the same circumstances in London. Would his death have been reported to the coroner?

Who would have gathered evidence such as police logbooks, video recordings and witness statements? The police, a coroner, an independent institution with police powers?

The reader asked me because in 2019 I wrote about the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) in England and Wales.

Also, Parliament’s Bills Committee, which reviewed the (now axed) 2019 IPCMC Bill, considered the IOPC a benchmark agency.

The IOPC is a police service that polices the police. Many IOPC investigators are former police officers. They have powers, resources and facilities at least equal to Malaysia’s Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

In England and Wales, a strict statutory rule applies in all matters of death or serious injury (DSI) involving the police. DSI includes deaths and injuries in custody, in traffic incidents and shootings involving police, soon after contact with police, and more.

All DSI matters must be investigated by the IOPC. The responsibility of the police is limited to preserving evidence, notifying the IOPC and complying with any instructions issued by IOPC officers.

Note: I’m using the definition of “DSI matter” in the IOPC document Statutory guidance to the police force on achieving best evidence in death and serious injury matters. I have not repeated the definition here because it is too long.

Now, I’ll try to answer the questions.

If a doctor had issued a medical certificate of cause of death, Ganapathy’s death would not have been reported to the local coroner (only a third of all deaths are reported to coronersin England and Wales).

If a doctor had alleged Ganapathy had sustained any serious injury as stated above, the police would have referred the case to the IOPC.

However, since someone reported a suspicion that the police contributed to his death, the police would have been expected to refer the case to the IOPC.

The deaths of Sivabalan and of Umar Faruq would have been reported to local coroners. Since they died in police custody, the police would have referred their cases to the IOPC.

A side note: the IOPC may choose to conduct an independent investigation, or to manage an investigation conducted by the police.

Moving on, if they died in London, would there be coroner’s inquests? To answer, I rely on the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009.

For Ganapathy, the answer is “only if the coroner has reason to suspect that he died a violent or unnatural death, or if the cause of death is unknown”. It seems the coroner has discretion to decide.

For Sivabalan and Umar, the answer is “because they died in custody, the coroner must hold inquests, each with a jury of seven to 11 persons.”

I’ll end by noting what Inquest, the UK’s leading watchdog on coronial inquests, has written about the IOPC’s involvement:

“Once the [IOPC] investigation has taken place, the IOPC will state whether it believes there has been a breach of the Police Code of Conduct and whether to recommend any disciplinary action against any of the officers involved. If the police force concerned does not agree, the IOPC has the power to enforce its recommendations. A decision may be made before the inquest, or it may happen afterwards.”

I think it is time to establish a real Independent Police Complaints and Conduct Commission. Not the vapid version proposed by the Pakatan Harapan government, but something more like the IOPC. What do you think?

* Rama Ramanathan is spokesman for Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances, CAGED.

* 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.