Justice must be fair and speedy

An incident many years ago reminds the columnist of how police action can go wrong.

Improper police action sometimes happens when the policeman concerned receives directions from an immediate superior or when a colleague is connected to an alleged wrongdoer.

MY last article (“About police action and inaction”, July 12, 2018) received quite a bit of response. In it, I discussed whether certain ways in which police personnel act is proper or not.

I have nothing against the police. Many policemen are decent people. However, there have been occasions when some policemen have acted in a manner that is not proper or reasonable.

According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, “proper” can mean (1) right, appropriate or correct; (2) that you consider to be satisfactory; or (3) socially and morally acceptable. “Reasonable” is defined as “fair, practical and sensible” or “in a logical and sensible way”.

Therefore, not in any legally technical manner, I proceed with my discussion bearing in mind the words “fair” and “reasonable”.

Improper police action sometimes happens when the policeman concerned receives directions from an immediate superior or when a colleague is connected to an alleged wrongdoer. There are many other possible reasons but in the absence of direct personal knowledge, I will not discuss them.

I can, however, talk about one example I encountered many years ago, when I happened to be at the magistrate’s court in Petaling Jaya.

A Malaysian boy, aged about 14, was charged for not having his identity card with him at the time he was stopped by the police. He had been in police custody for seven days before he was produced in court that day.

According to the facts read out by the prosecuting officer, the boy worked in an eatery in the evenings until about 9pm to earn money to supplement his family’s income.

After work one day, he was stopped by a policeman.

The boy could not produce his IC when asked about it. He must have forgotten to bring it along.

He was brought to the police station and taken into custody.

So what was improper about this? The boy should have been taken home or he should have asked the policeman to accompany him home. If this had been done, he would have been able to produce his IC, and there would have been no reason to detain him until he was brought to court.

In view of this, I feel that the detention was wrongful and an injustice.

To my surprise, the magistrate at the request of the prosecuting officer sentenced the boy to seven days’ imprisonment.

The magistrate told the boy that since he had been in detention for seven days, he was treated as having served his sentence and therefore could go home.

The youngster was, of course, delighted and left the court.

After the court adjourned, I looked for the boy to get his details and find out all that had happened.

Unfortunately, I could not find him. He must have run off as soon as he walked out of the courtroom.

I strongly felt that, at that point of time, an injustice had been done to this boy.

In this connection, I am reminded of the words of Lawrence H. Cooke, a former chief judge of New York State: “The fair and speedy delivery of justice is undoubtedly the noblest of human aspirations. It must remain our constant goal.”

Any comments or suggestions for points of discussion can be sent to mavico7@yahoo.com. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.