`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Policeman, police force and govt found liable for murder

The victim was found shot and killed at his workplace in an alleged armed robbery cum murder.
polis_mahkamah_300_1IPOH: The Sessions Court here yesterday ruled that a police officer, the police force and the government of Malaysia were liable to a suit filed over the murder of a businessman nearly six years ago.
Judge Sunita Kaur Jessy decided that Mohd Taufik Peter Abdullah, a police officer during the material time, was primarily responsible for the shooting and killing of Chen Fun Kee, 42.
Sunita set March 13 for assessment of damages for the criminal suit brought by Chen’s widow Leong Seok Cheng as first plaintiff and the couple’s only child Chen Ming Hui as second plaintiff.
Chen was found shot and killed at his workplace at Kedai MaxGold Enterprise at 105, Jalan Sultan Iskandar, Ipoh, in an alleged armed robbery cum murder incident at 5pm September 9, 2009.
Chen’s family named Mohd Taufik as the first defendant, Perak CPO/police force as second defendant and the Malaysia government as third defendant in their suit.
The plaintiffs were represented by M Kula Segaran and Selvam Nadarajah while HS Huam from the Attorney-General Chambers represented the second and third defendants.
Mohd Taufik, who was jailed pending Chen’s murder trial, was unrepresented.
Kula said the court decided that “on the balance of probability the first defendant was on duty at the time of the incident and therefore the second and third defendants were vicariously liable.”
Kula said that the plaintiff had adduced evidence through the witnesses to show that Mohd Taufik was responsible for Chen’s death.
During the hearing, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the second and third defendants failed to supervise or exercise control over Mohd Taufik, who while being employed as a police officer used a pistol belonging to the police force that killed Chen.
Kula has argued that a message must be sent out by the court that nobody was above the law and that included the police in their discharge of their duties.
“The court decision was a victory for the innocent man killed by a policeman,” said Kula in a statement.
In their suit, the plaintiffs claimed for aggravated, exemplary and special damages, and other reliefs deemed fit by the court.
They have stated that the guilty and those responsible should be made accountable for their negligence and irresponsible acts in this case.
Governed by the Police Act, they stated a police officer was “deemed to be always on duty when required to act as such and shall perform the duties and exercise the powers granted to him under the Act or…..”
Under Section 85 of the Act, a police officer may in the performance of his duties carry arms.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that a young man’s life had been robbed and, his care and support to this family was permanently cut off.
The lawyers noted that Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution states that: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.”
The police counter argued that the killing by Mohd Taufik was “a frolic of his own”.
But lawyers for the plaintiff argued that by providing or according the first defendant the usage of the fire arm, the police had a supreme duty of care to society at large which included the deceased.
“Are we going to allow the police to wash their hands without any responsibility? They can arm a police man and he is authorised to be trigger happy?,” they argued, adding that it must be remembered that whatever compensation the family got, the deceased could never be brought back to life.
“The guilty and those responsible should be made accountable for their negligence and irresponsible acts in this case,” argued the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.