Court orders cops to reopen probe of Dutch model's death
Justice Roz Mawar Rozain issued the mandamus order to compel the police to reopen the case after finding it liable for failures found throughout the investigation.
She also ordered the Inspector-General of Police, the first defendant, to remove investigating officer Asst Supt Faizal Abdullah from the current task force.
ALSO READ: Court orders govt to pay RM1.1mil to family of Dutch model who fell to her death
'The police are directed to brief the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) every three months from the date of this judgment on the updates of the investigation.
'The AGC is to deliver on the sufficiency of evidence and the next step forward,' she said in her decision on Tuesday (July 29).
Justice Roz Mawar found all four defendants – the IGP, ASP Faizal, the Home Minister and the government – liable, albeit to varying degrees, in a civil action filed in 2020 by Smit's mother, Christina Carolina Gerarda Johanna Verstappen.
She filed the lawsuit over what she claimed to be a mishandling of the investigation into her daughter's death by the defendants.
ALSO READ: Interpol Blue Notice issued against American couple over murder of Dutch model Ivana Smit
The 18-year-old Smit was found dead on the sixth floor of CapSquare Residence here on Dec 7, 2017.
In her decision, Justice Roz Mawar awarded RM1.1mil to Verstappen as the plaintiff for general, aggravated and exemplary damages.
The court also found there was a non-compliance by the defendants with a High Court order dated November 2019, relating to the case.
'The 2019 High Court order is clear and unambiguous. It directed this case to be reclassified as death by person or persons unknown and compelled the AGC to direct the police to recommence its investigation as a murder case.
'Despite this clear judicial directive, evidence shows that the defendants failed to comply meaningfully with the 2019 High Court order,' she said.
ALSO READ: Dutch model's death: Trial set to begin as settlement fails
The court also noted that there was a conflict of interest when the police retained the same investigating officer in a special task force that was formed following the 2019 High Court order.
The court found that ASP Faizal had arbitrarily classified the incident as suicide on the same day when the investigation had begun as a suspected homicide.
'The same compromised investigating officer was retained. Ineffective measures were taken. Although the case was split and continued, the defendants failed to offer any evidence to substantiate continuing investigative methods.
'The investigation has effectively stagnated with no significant progress since 2019. So, the failure to comply with a clear judicial directive constitutes further breaches of statutory duty. It may also lead to contempt of court,' she added.
ALSO READ: Court reinstates suit by late Dutch model's mother for full trial
The judge said that while the case represented a significant failure in the discharge of investigative duties by law enforcement, the findings in the case should not be interpreted as a criticism of the police force.
She said the evidence before the court showed there were multiple departures from accepted standards in the investigation, which resulted in a denial of justice to the plaintiff, and this finding should be treated as an identification of the elements that needed correction.
In November 2019, the High Court overturned a coroner's ruling that found Smit's death was due to 'misadventure'.
Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah (now a Court of Appeal judge) had then allowed an application by Smit's family to review the coroner's ruling in March the same year.
In his findings, Justice Sequerah said Smit's death was caused by 'persons known or unknown' and that there was insufficient investigation done on the possibility of death by homicide.
He directed the AGC to instruct the police to investigate Smit's death.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
12 minutes ago
- The Star
Court of appeal dismissed former special needs student's appeal in bullying suit
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a former student of a special education secondary school who sought damages and declaratory relief over alleged bullying and the failure to provide proper special education. The appellant, now 27, had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Asperger's Syndrome. The Court of Appeal three-member bench, comprising Justices Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, Datuk Azmi Ariffin and Datuk Faizah Jamaludin, dismissed the appeal after ruling that the appellant failed to prove his claim against the school, the school principal, the Malaysian government and the Education Ministry. The appellant, through his adoptive mother, had filed the lawsuit in 2017 at the High Court against the school, the school principal, the Malaysian Government and the Education Ministry. He claimed the respondents breached their duty of care, which caused him to be a victim of physical and verbal attacks whilst at the premises of the school. In the 44-page judgment, which was uploaded on the judiciary's website on Monday (Aug 4), the appellate court affirmed the Feb 2023 decision of the High Court in dismissing the suit filed by the young man. Justice Mohd Nazlan said there was insufficient evidence that the respondents failed to ensure a proper and appropriate education and teaching facilities for the young man. He said the appellant failed to prove the allegation of bullying incidents on the balance of probabilities, and also did not prove the actual occurrences of the verbal and physical assault as claimed by the appellant. Justice Mohd Nazlan observed that the appellant did not testify in his case, and the testimony provided by his adoptive mother was deemed hearsay and therefore inadmissible. "The appellants' (appellant and adoptive mother) case regarding the alleged incidents could not succeed, as the individual accused of harassing and assaulting the appellant was neither named as a party to the suit nor subpoenaed to testify as a witness,' he said. The court stressed that bullying has no place in any civilised society, but found the evidence presented in the case insufficient to prove that the appellant had been victimised. "In this case, we are not unsympathetic to the problems and plight encountered by the appellants. "There may have been disagreements or even altercations, especially involving the first appellant and H (the individual in question), but the court must decide based on facts and evidence,' said Justice Mohd Nazlan. He said school authorities, including teachers and staff, undoubtedly owe a duty of care to ensure the safety of their pupils and students within the compound and premises of the school and that they were responsible for the students' safety, welfare, and well-being. "Schools must, in their operations, adhere to the regulations, standards, and policies issued by the education authorities, particularly concerning the provision of special education for students with special needs,' he said. However, he added that no breaches of these duties had been established in this case. In the statement of claim, the appellant claimed he was bullied several times at the hostel, including being spat at while he was praying, tied to his bed, punched and kicked, and his belongings were stolen. He claimed that no action was taken by the school and its principal, despite numerous complaints lodged. In the statement of defence filed on July 24, 2017, the school stated that the placement of the student concerned was made based on the choice made by the boy and his adoptive mother during registration. — Bernama
The Star
12 minutes ago
- The Star
Court orders Caprice to remove defamatory Instagram posts about businessman
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here on Tuesday (Aug 5) ordered rapper Caprice to immediately remove all defamatory posts about a businessman from his Instagram account, which were uploaded last month. Judge Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh made the ruling after allowing an ad-interim injunction sought by Datuk Seri Jeyenderan Ramasamy, 50, against Caprice, whose real name is Ariz Ramli, 39, as the sole defendant. The court also restrained Caprice from making further defamatory statements about the plaintiff pending the hearing of the inter partes injunction. The order was confirmed by Jeyenderan's lawyers, Muniandy Vestanathan, Fiona Aurelia Culas and Muhammad Afiq Yahawa, as well as Caprice's counsel, Megat Syazlee Mokhtarom, when contacted by Bernama. Jeyenderan, the chief executive officer of a shipping company, filed the suit on July 21, claiming that on July 10, the defendant had uploaded several posts, including photographs and videos of him, on Instagram, allegedly linking him to criminal activities, gangsterism and armed threats, without any credible evidence. Based on his statement of claim, the plaintiff asserted that the defamatory posts were intended to create suspicion, public hatred and social pressure against him, and that the defendant had never contacted him or his representatives to seek verification or clarification before publishing such serious allegations. He contended that the defendant's actions clearly demonstrated no intent to provide fair and accurate information, but rather to tarnish his name and reputation, noting that the defendant commands significant influence on Instagram with over 1.5 million followers. As a result of the publications, Jeyenderan alleged that his reputation as a global shipping and maritime expert had been damaged, and claimed he suffered special damages amounting to RM1mil after losing several keynote speaking contracts in Dubai, Turkey and India, offered by a Dubai-based company. On July 15, his solicitors issued a letter of demand to the defendant outlining several demands, which the defendant subsequently rejected through Messrs Megat Iqbal & Co. The plaintiff is seeking RM3mil in damages for reputational harm, special damages, general damages and exemplary damages, along with costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. He is also applying for an injunction to prevent the defendant from making further defamatory statements, to compel the removal of all defamatory content, and to require a public apology across all social media accounts owned or controlled by the defendant. - Bernama
Borneo Post
12 minutes ago
- Borneo Post
Indonesian jailed two years, nine months for smuggling eight migrants
The accused is escorted out of the courtroom at the Kuching Court Complex. — Photo by Kentigern Minggu KUCHING (Aug 5): An Indonesian man was sentenced by the High Court here today to two years and nine months' imprisonment for smuggling eight migrants from his home country. Judicial Commissioner Zaleha Mohd Yusuf Pan meted out the sentence against the accused, 34, after he pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 26J of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Atipsom) Act 2007. This section provides for a maximum prison sentence of five years, a fine of up to RM250,000, or both upon conviction. The court also ordered that his sentence take effect from the date of his arrest, July 22, 2023. The accused committed the offence beside a shop premises along Jalan Batu Kawa here on the said date, at about 9.01pm. According to the facts of the case, a police team stopped a black Perodua Alza travelling beside the shop and found that the driver, later identified as the accused, was transporting eight other individuals to an undisclosed location. Further investigation revealed that all the individuals were Indonesian nationals. A report from the Malaysian Immigration Department stated that two of the eight had no record of entering or exiting Malaysia, while the remaining six did. However, their travel records indicated that they had overstayed in the country. The two were later charged under Section 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63, while the remaining six were charged under Section 15(1)(c) of the same Act. All of the migrants have since been sentenced accordingly. Therefore, the accused was found to have committed an offence under Section 26J of the Atipsom Act 2007. Deputy Public Prosecutor Muhammad Afiq Safly Nor Kazly prosecuted the case, while the accused was represented by lawyer Ranbir Singh Sangha. Court crime smuggled migrants
