Police respond to murder case criticism
04:45 AM Jul 09, 2011
SINGAPORE - Criticised by a court for its investigations into the brutal murder of Tham Weng Kuen, the police responded yesterday with a 600-word statement in which they "acknowledge that legal procedures in relation to the recording of any confession should be observed".
On Tuesday, Mr Ismil Kadar, 42, who had spent six years behind bars, walked out a free man after the Court of Appeal absolved him of any involvement in the murder of Tham, 69, on May 6, 2005.
The court upheld the finding that Mr Ismil's brother, Muhammad, was the sole culprit in the fatal stabbing of Tham during a robbery.
Mr Ismil had initially confessed to the police that he had stabbed Tham. The judges said there were serious doubts about the reliability of his police statements.
For example, the first time Mr Ismil purportedly confessed was in a police car. The officer, however, recorded his statement on a piece of paper instead of in his field diary. The statement was also not read back to him nor signed by him, as required.
Among other things, the judges also pointed out that there was "absolutely" no physical evidence of Mr Ismil having been in the flat.
The police said in its statement yesterday: "While the investigation team had put in much effort to collect all evidence, including forensic evidence, the court's comments that more effort should have been made to collect objective evidence are noted."
The Police Statement
In response to media queries over the comments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Muhammad bin Kadar and Ismil bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor, the police acknowledges that legal procedures in relation to the recording of any confession should be observed. In this regard, it has reminded its officers to ensure that they endeavour to always comply with such procedures under any circumstances.
Senior Station Inspector (SSI) Zainal Abidin bin Ismail was criticised in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. He was one of a team of officers deployed to investigate the murder of the deceased at Block 185, Boon Lay Avenue #05-156, which was discovered on May 6, 2005.
Ismil had been arrested earlier that day and held for an unrelated theft case at Boon Lay Shopping Centre. The next day, when he was being brought to Block 185, Boon Lay Avenue (Ismil lived one floor below the murdered victim) for investigations, he revealed to SSI Zainal while seated in a police car that he had attacked the deceased. SSI Zainal immediately informed his superior officers. At that juncture, SSI Zainal did not record Ismil's statement in his field diary, as he did not have it with him. Instead, he recorded it on a piece of paper, and later that day transferred it to his field diary. Ismil was immediately taken to a nearby neighbourhood police centre for further interviews and for the collection of forensic evidence by a forensics officer. This was the priority to avoid such evidence being lost or contaminated before a written statement was taken from the subject.
SSI Zainal testified that later that day, when he interviewed Ismil at the neighbourhood police centre, Ismil repeated the confession he had made earlier in the police car. Ismil was also interviewed subsequently by a senior police officer and he repeated his confession again which was recorded in a written statement, duly read over to him and signed by him.
SSI Zainal had acted in a manner which in his judgment he believed was reasonable under the dynamic circumstances which he faced. The High Court accepted SSI Zainal's explanation and admitted this evidence but the Court of Appeal has found that the statements made by Ismil to SSI Zainal should not have been admitted into evidence, because they were not properly recorded and this materially compromised their reliability.
The Court of Appeal also commented that more effort should have been made to collect objective evidence in this case. This case involved a particularly brutal murder. The police treat all such cases and the collection of evidence at such crime scenes with the utmost seriousness. Each scene is processed by a team of experts from the Forensic Management Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department.
In this instance, there was also a scientist from the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) activated to the scene to give advice on the collection of forensic evidence. The entire team at the crime scene looked for likely places where evidence such as DNA or fingerprints might have been left. The experts then collected evidence to be sent for analysis, which they hoped would yield leads to potential suspects. In this case, their painstaking efforts turned up a piece of critical evidence - the DNA of Muhammad Kadar on the purse of the victim.
While the investigation team had put in much effort to collect all evidence, including forensic evidence, the court's comments that more effort should have been made to collect objective evidence are noted. We will convey these comments to our officers to motivate them to work harder to collect such evidence at the scene of crime.