Police Lock-up Singapore

[Alacoque Whitchurch]

KUALALUMPUR - The shocking rape case of a 16-year-old girl while being held by Malaysian police in Sarawak recently has raised calls for an independent inquiry and spotlighted once again alleged shortcomings of the force.

The authorities have promised that there would be no cover-up and those involved will be brought to justice, similar to promises made in cases involving the deaths of criminal suspects in police custody and policemen who have been nabbed for myriad corrupt activities.

But while in custody, she claimed that a male detainee from another cell had opened the door to her lock-up between 4am and 5am, before taking her to the station's toilet to rape her. The alleged rapist apparently had the key to the teenager's cell.

"The police belong to the people. They put their trust in the force to administer the laws fairly," said the Inspector-General of Police. " I want the people to respect the force and not to fear it. I want to see my men as the saviour of the victims of crimes and those oppressed - which is why I promise that there will be no cover-up in this case."

She added that the law is clear that a child upon arrest must be brought before a court in 24 hours, and from the place of arrest to the police station, a child must be separated from all adult suspects.

"There was no need to keep her in a lock-up. Just take her statement, call her parents and a Social Welfare Department's officer. If at all, Malaysia must build a special remand centre for children to ensure that they are safe," she said.

Senator Alan Ling Sie Kiong from Sarawak, who last week accompanied the teenager and her father to formally lodge a police report, said: "The failure to strictly comply with the lock-up rules, or bypassing them as in this case, has allowed abuses in the handling of those in custody."

The heated debate surrounding the case has led critics to revisit the formation of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission, or IPCMC, which the force has resisted for years as outsiders would be able to intervene in its affairs.

The plan to form IPCMC was formally put up by the Pakatan Harapan government that came to power in May 2018. But the plan was dropped by the succeeding Perikatan Nasional (PN) government that took power at the end of February last year.

"The decision to scrap the IPCMC is political. Many policemen and retired ones are not in favour of it because it allows an independent oversight body to mete out a punishment on errant cops," a source told The Straits Times.

The proposed Bill, deemed deeply flawed by its critics, allows top police officers to influence and intervene in investigations involving misconduct. It also allows witnesses who are police officers to recuse themselves from answering questions during a probe.

"People have asked me, 'Aren't you ashamed of seeing so many of your men being arrested?' Why should I be? This is exactly why I'm here - to keep them in check and to show that no matter how embarrassing it can get, my honest men and I are ready to correct our wrong," he said.

In a written judgment issued on Thursday, Justice Philip Jeyaretnam found that police officer Mohamed Rosli Mohamed had made up the observation that Mr Mah had been mumbling to himself and had spat into a plastic bag, to justify apprehending him under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act.

He said: I find on a balance of probabilities that Rosli, knowing that he had no power to arrest Mah for the matter complained of because it was not an arrestable offence, took a dislike to Mah for his apparently disrespectful conduct, including not handing his identity card directly to him.

Mr Mah was held at the Central Police Division regional lock-up at about 10pm. He was examined by Dr Lin Hanjie, who referred him to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for treatment at about 10.20pm.

In 2020, Mr Mah, who represented himself, sued the Attorney-General representing the Singapore Police Force and the two officers. Mr Mah proposed that he be awarded $4,620.95, referring to what an individual in Malaysia was awarded in compensation.

Justice Jeyaretnam said that in awarding $20,000, he took into account the fact that Mr Mah was handcuffed and kept in a police cell, rather than taken directly to IMH, which would have been less stressful for him.

He further alleged that the police refused to let him call his family members, that medical personnel at the lock-up ignored his concerns about his high heart rate and that his car was returned to him only after a long time, said SPF.

He was taken to the lock-up facility at Police Cantonment Complex at about 4am. There, he was processed for detention pending a further breath analyser test through the Breath Evidential Analyser (BEA) machine, said SPF.

"At about 4.40am, after a few attempts to provide a BEA test sample, See passed the BEA test taken in the lock-up with a recorded result of 31 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath," said the police.

While in custody, See was brought to wait in a temporary holding area in between his BEA test attempts. He was brought to another temporary holding area after the BEA test was completed, to await the processing of his release, said SPF.

"See put up a strong resistance entering into the padded cell and struggled with officers. Despite repeated advice by the officers, See refused to comply with officers' instruction. Officers therefore had to apply necessary force to physically move him into the padded cell."

In See's account of this in the video interview, he alleged that six or seven officers had "pinned (him) down" and were "using their force" on him. He claimed that one person used an elbow on his neck, causing him to be unable to breathe. He also alleged that the officers kicked him and used "unnecessary force".

Responding to See's claim that his request to use the toilet was ignored, the police said that at about 6am, See asked to use the toilet. Due to his earlier struggle, arrangements were made for more officers to escort him.

"The police do not typically release vehicles back to persons arrested for drink driving straight after their release from custody as they may still have alcohol in their body, which could affect their faculties and cause them to pose a risk to themselves and other road users if they are allowed to operate the vehicle too soon," said SPF.

SPF also acknowledged that shortly after his release, See lodged a complaint and wrote in to provide his feedback on his custodial experience. Following this complaint, the police asked him to seek medical assessment.

An arrest is the process that begins when the police takes a suspect into custody. This process is complete when the suspect is no longer free to walk away from the arresting officer, mainly due to evidence and credible facts to support the alleged offence.

What is an arrestable offence?

Can the police arrest someone without a warrant?

Can an arrest be made by a non-police officer?

What can the suspect do?

Will the suspect be informed of the reasons behind the arrest?

What happens after that?

Some of the more common arrestable offences include rape, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, theft, robbery and drug consumption. A police officer may arrest a suspect without a warrant if the person is suspected of being involved in an arrestable offence made on the grounds of credible information and definite facts.

If the offence is not an arrestable one, such as causing hurt, as opposed to grievous hurt, the police will first conduct an investigation after a report has been made. The decision will then be made on whether to obtain an arrest warrant against the suspect.

A person can also be arrested without a warrant for a non-arrestable offence if he or she refuses to provide his/her name and residential address upon request. However in this case, the person can only be detained in custody for a maximum of 48 hours.

The police must inform the suspect of the reasons behind the arrest. While there is no specific timeline for this process, the police can only hold the suspect for a maximum of 48 hours after the arrest. After this period has lapsed, the police will have to produce the suspect before a magistrate and make an application for further remand.

Detention: Upon arrest, the suspect will likely be searched and taken back to the police headquarters for further questioning. After that, the suspect may be remanded in a police lock-up for further investigations.

Take note that when a suspect is arrested, it does not mean the person is charged for the offence. This only happens after the suspect is formally charged by the Public Prosecutor in court before a trial can begin.

The suspect may also be taken to the crime scene to recreate the events of the alleged offence. Blood may also be drawn for DNA samples, as well as fingerprints and a mugshot taken for identification purposes. The suspect may also be required to take a polygraph (lie-detector) test.

It is always good practise to record each moment down as much as possible, before seeing a lawyer. If the suspect does not understand English, a request can be made for an interpreter to help record and verify the statement.

Refusing to sign the charge will be recorded and may be presented to the court. The suspect will know if they are to get charged in court if the investigation officer either informs them of it, or requests that the suspect bring a bailor to the police station who will need to secure their attendance in court.

Once the investigating officer has gathered sufficient evidence, the police will then submit the results of the investigations to the Public Prosecutor who will make the final decision on whether to formally proceed with the prosecution.

Depending on the circumstances of the case, the Public Prosecutor may then exercise his/her discretion to either proceed with the prosecution or not, regardless of whether there is sufficient evidence.

Singapore should amend domestic legislation to restrict the power of police officers to use lethal force, especially in the context of assemblies. Use of firearms can only be lawful where it is necessary to confront an imminent threat of death or serious injury or a grave and proximate threat to life.

3a8082e126