5 Nov 2020
A month ago I was arrested for the first time - also the first time in the course of my professional duties. I have been busy administering the consequences of that arrest, upon my business, so I have hardly had the time to reflect upon the consequences of that arrest upon myself. (Without discussing the specific charges arising from this investigation:) I have been quite excited by the little adventure it has brought me through, in learning about the Malaysian law enforcement process.
First of all, on the day of arrest, I was not informed of the process which was being conducted. For example, I was asked by police at the station if I had a lawyer, but it was not stated what the purpose of a lawyer would be - so I said, I did not have a lawyer ... yet maybe if I had one, I would not have been remanded that evening (to-date I have not bothered to discover the details of the process which was not explained to me, though I intend to study it in the future). To be remanded means you are stripped and put into the police lockup, and you get to wear the crunk suit in orange or purple - I chose purple, it had a more regal feel to it. There is apparently a set of "Lockup Rules 1953" but these I noticed by accident, pasted in the hallway a day later, and these rules are not visible from the lockup cells. Quick Googling indicates that often enough, these rules are not adhered to, and so I must read them some day. My hypothesis at this point is, if you have someone else come to the station before 5 p.m. on day of your arrest, you may have them bail you out - if the investigating officer allows it, but I have yet to confirm this theory. Even these little discrepancies are fascinating. (Now I'll skip over the details of the lockup conditions, as I have written about that already elsewhere. I'll also skip through the process of release from the lockup, though I should mention that the new investigating officer who interviewed me prior to release was not the same chap whom I met on the day of arrest.)
Second, on the day before my first court mention, the new IO called me by telephone, and told me to turn up at the court the next day at 8:30 a.m.. I had to further inquire with him about what my charges would be under this investigation, before he told me. At this point, I was still unaware of the existence of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kanun Tatacara Jenayah), and so in between my business work on the day of the IO's call, I received advice from various friends about certain sections of the CPC, and I also briefly skimmed the CPC as I prepared my statement for mitigation (reduction) of the sentence - as I intended to plead guilty to the charges. What I remained unaware of, was that it would be possible to settle the charges out of court with the Deputy Public Prosecutor, but in order to activate that process it would be customary (not mandatory) for me to plead Not Guilty at the first court mention when the charges would first be read to me.
So the next day, as I entered the courthouse premises, I discovered that suited individuals claiming to be lawyers were canvassing each member of the public who was facing charges ... apparently this is normal, they have a custom of just waiting there and pitching their services. Great, but unfortunately not procedural, so I ignored these touts. Their pitches were not very good also, as they didn't explain what systematic value they would add to a self-repesenting accused member of the public - instead preferring to speak only of abilities to assist in the reduction of final penalties via this or that tactic, all very arbitrary and lacking in context. So on this day, I was read my charges, and I pleaded guilty, hoping to be quickly sentenced and fined or put into jail whichever the magistrate should prefer. To my dismay, another date was set for sentencing, so instead of reading my mitigation for the purpose of reducing my sentence, I was allowed to read my mitigation for the purpose of reducing my bail. All quite fascinating. (Skipping over some dramas I have already written about elsewhere.)
Following these events, I chit-chatted with more lawyers in some Facebook groups and was rather miffed by their sense of entitlement towards the preservation of a class divide between legal professionals and other members of the public. However, they were helpful enough to introduce me to the proper name for what is called the Letter of Representation, which is how anyone customarily writes to a Deputy Public Prosecutor, asking for a change or cessation of charges. Other friends elsewhere were helpful in producing guidelines which DPPs have for processing such Letters, and even the DPP's office which I visited was forthcoming in providing an example of such Letters.
Up till now, I haven't made the time to read the CPC in greater detail, nor have I submitted my Letter to the DPP. I am reminded by professionals that the Letter may be ignored, unless I have any material changes go introduce, whereas it should not be ignored on any basis that a trial has begun and is ongoing as my initial guilty plea has aborted any trial. I'm not yet sure if I will make time to write, or what my final Letter will say. But I think I will certainly comment a little on my experience as a subject of the law, who is actively learning about it. Quite, absolutely, fascinating.
The Malaysian public education syllabus for 13- to 15-year-olds has a book called Kemahiran Hidup (Life Skills) and it's an end-less joke that everyone spends a month learning how to hammer a nail, yet receives no mention of any construct of modern governance such as taxes. I guess little encounters such as the above will help, if I ever get around to writing an updated Kanun Kemahiran Hidup ...
No comments :
Post a Comment