Lawyer: Malaysian Police shouldn't have edited footage

The police should not have edited or tampered with video footage of the PJ candlelight vigil almost a fortnight ago - showing the arrests of 23 participants - said a lawyer today.

"It is unacceptable.

"If it’s evidence that the police have confiscated, the item should be released and returned in its original form as far as possible," lawyer Edmund Bon explained when contacted.

He was asked to comment on a video clip recorded by Malaysiakini.tv videographer Shukri Mohamad. The clip was confiscated by the police on Nov 9 and returned yesterday - after being tampered with.

Shukri, who was on duty covering the candlelight vigil in Petaling Jaya on Nov 9, was arrested together with 22 others for allegedly participating in an illegal assembly.

Although he was released after overnight questioning, the police decided to hold his camera and the videotape for further investigation as they wanted to "look inside the camera".

Though both items were returned to Shukri yesterday, of the 35-minute clip was found to have been recorded with new visuals.

‘There is a consistent pattern’

Elaborating on the matter, Bon (right) - Shukri’s counsel - said the latest episode showed that the police did not have standard procedures in handling case exhibits.

"They act on their whims and fancies.

"There is a consistent pattern, as you can see, of police indiscipline and arbitrariness in dealing with these matters (such as) when the police kept the Malaysiakini computers in a 2003 raid and only returned all of them two years later," he said.

He was alluding to a Jan 2003 incident, where police confiscated 19 computers of the online daily to facilitate investigation over a letter from reader ‘Petrof’ which was claimed seditious.

The police later found there was no case and closed the investigation two years later.

Another lawyer, M Puravalen said a police report should be lodged over the matter if there is suspicion that the tape has been tampered with.

"The tape also should be referred to an independent agency for verification on the suspicion (that it has been edited)," said the lawyer.

"However, there is no offence per se in the Penal Code for tampering evidence.

"It only states in Section 192 of the code for fabrication of false evidence," he explained.

Beh Lih Yi
malaysiakini
21/11/08