IT is heartening to note that the attorney-general will have another look at the Teoh Beng Hock case but it will definitely be an arduous task as it has been more than a decade since his death.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers were held accountable but no one has been identified to be criminally responsible.

What went wrong? Why was it that the criminal justice system was unable to deliver the goods then?

We can trace the source of the problem to the initial classification of the case as a sudden-death report.

If the officer in charge of the Shah Alam police district then had a more aggressive assessment at the scene of crime and that even with an iota of suspicion, he would, with the concurrence of the officer in charge of Criminal Investigation Department (CID), classified it as a criminal offence.

This would have enabled investigators to use all the powers of investigation available to them under chapter 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the powers arrest, detention, further detention and interrogation.

The failure of this assessment and under classification of the case at the outset, is why we are in this predicament with Teoh’s case.

The suspects were obviously all within the MACC building. It needed the CID to detain the officer who officially had custody of Teoh together with all those who came into contact with him just before his death. 

In this case, the first 48 hours of investigation was crucial to either identify the perpetrators or exonerate them.

The main tool of investigations for this case was to arrest immediately the suspects, detain them, apply for further detention and interrogate them separately.

The probability of solving the case would have been much higher. In this case, a difficult call was required to arrest all those acquainted with the case and deceased within the last 24 hours of his death was necessary.

All of them in this category were suspects. This inquiry by the A-G should make an effort to probe into this aspect. Was it by design or sheer incompetence?

Normally investigators can narrow down the person or persons responsible from the similarities and contradictions of their statements. The delay in applying this approach would allow suspects, if any, to collaborate and synchronise their stories so as to ensure that all give the same version of false evidence if that is the case.

Time is always of the essence in such cases. The longer the delay in the arrest, the more difficult it becomes to establish the truth.

Confidence and the experience of balancing between public interest, rights and gathering of evidence must be part of the natural instinct of an investigator.

An instinctive hunch should have been allowed to take its course although there is the downside of trampling on the rights of the suspects. 

A good and experienced investigator can sense who the perpetrators are, especially when they were in close proximity with the deceased around the time of his death. 

Valuable time was lost in pursuing the right action when investigators at the scene of crime and immediately after, were more tailored to damage control for MACC rather than ensuring that all efforts were being carried out for justice to be swiftly done.

At least from this case we should try to understand how intricately balanced an investigation is in serious offences, especially when it is crucial to take immediate action to arrest, detain and interrogate suspects. 

Generally, we investigate first and arrest later but unfortunately this case did not fall into that general theory. The more the criminal justice system understands how the push and pull of the investigative arm works the better it can deliver. 

Enhance the investigative powers of the police but balance it with firm and effective checks and balances. Interrogations and recording of confessions can be made transparent by audio and visual channels.

Raise the confidence and morale of investigators so as to enable them to make an authoritative call during their pursuit in gathering admissible evidence.

They must be given the legal space and time to all the tools of investigation. But come down hard on those who abuse these powers.

The right balance must be struck if we are not to have another Teoh Beng Hock case. – July 17, 2018.

* G. Selva 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.