January 30
GREAT BRITAIN:
The death penalty is a brutal relic – Britain must seize today’s chance to make
that clear to Donald Trump----The government is not being sufficiently robust
in its dealings with the US, for fear the president might hold a ‘grudge’
It was more than half a century ago, on 21 December 1964, when Sydney Silverman
spoke in the House of Commons in favour of his private member’s bill to abolish
the death penalty. He had a guiding moral purpose in removing the gallows from
the UK’s criminal justice system: “In this darkness and gloom into which the
20th century civilisation has so far led us, we can at least light this small
candle and see how far its tiny beams can penetrate the gloom.”
The bill reached the statute book the following year and, since then,
successive governments have shone its rays of hope around the world.
The UK’s bipartisan policy over decades has been to retain the abolition of the
death penalty at home and to argue for its abolition abroad. As recently as 31
October 2018 the prime minister, Theresa May, told the House of Commons: “Our
longstanding position on the death penalty is well known: we call for its
abolition globally.”
The ability of the UK to continue to use its considerable soft power to
buttress this call depends – always – on its own conduct, and that will be in
sharp focus this week.
Today, the House of Commons will debate the Crime (Overseas Production Orders)
Bill. Labour supports its aim: a quicker and more efficient exchange of
information with other countries to assist criminal investigations and
proceedings. This will require treaties with other countries in due course, and
the one that looms into view is with the United States, which holds substantial
amounts of electronic data.
Labour’s position is that the government should not provide information in
death penalty cases. Whilst they are likely to be extraordinarily rare, this is
a key principle. Indeed, the House of Lords passed an amendment to this effect
before Christmas. The government is claiming that if it does put this principle
into law, then the US will refuse to agree a treaty at all.
This analysis is misguided. It is well-established practice that the UK has
been securing death penalty assurances from the US under the current
arrangements created by the 1994 Treaty of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal
Matters.
In addition, the available evidence shows this government is not being
sufficiently robust in its dealings with the US. In recent days, the High Court
judgment in the case of the “foreign fighters” El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda
Kotey, who are to face justice in the US, has been published, opening up
internal government documents to scrutiny.
Labour has supported measures to tackle the issue of foreign fighters, and will
continue to do so, but this whole issue laid bare the government’s failure to
seek death penalty assurances at all. This was despite a Foreign and
Commonwealth Office warning that: “It could leave HMG [her majesty’s
government] open to accusations of western hypocrisy and double standards,
which would undermine HMG’s death penalty policy globally, including in the
US.”
Meanwhile, the UK embassy in Washington was warning of the possibility that
making a request for assurances would “wind the president up to complain to the
PM and, potentially, to hold a grudge”.
But the UK position on the death penalty – settled for so long – should not be
compromised for fear of the reaction of any American president; it is far too
precious for that. If we wish to continue to penetrate the gloom of the most
barbaric of judicial punishments around the world, the House of Commons should
put into law that no UK government will ever be complicit in the application of
the death penalty.
(source: Commentary; Nick Thomas-Symonds is Welsh Labour MP for Torfaen----The
Independent)
SINGAPORE:
Parliamentary Sec Amrin Amin meets death penalty escapee who now has his own
company
On January 28, Senior Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Home Affairs
Amrin Amin met a certain Jabez Koh when he visited Industrial & Services
Cooperative Society’s (ISCOS) newly renovated space iCosy Hub.
Mr. Koh was an ex-offender who nearly escaped the death penalty after being
charged with trafficking heroin. If he had trafficked a mere 1.85g more, he
would have met the minimum requirement of pure heroin being trafficked which
would lead to the death penalty.
After 24 years in prison and 20 strokes of the cane, Mr. Koh is a changed man
and a living inspiration to ex-convicts everywhere.
Found love, got married and owns a business
He is now happily married and with 3 children and even started his own
business.
It was after his release that Mr. Koh met ISCOS, a non-profit organization
which specialises in helping ex-convicts get a job. The organization also
provides skills training and peer support for those who otherwise would have a
hard time going back into society.
Just 5 years ago, in 2014, Mr. Koh established Infinite Transport Pte Ltd, a
logistics company that provides career opportunities to ex-offenders.
Amrin Amin, through a Facebook post, expressed how he was “happy to meet Jabez
and the staff at ISCOS”, and how ISCOS has done well.
Here is the full post: “Jabez was narrowly spared the death penalty.
He trafficked just 1.85g below the minimum amount of pure Heroin that would
have sent him to the gallows.
24 years of jail and 20 strokes of the cane later, Jabez is a free man today.
Jabez has a new life. He has a transport and logistics company which employed
many ex-offenders. Married with 2 young daughters – his pride and joy.
Jabez got back on his feet because he got help from Industrial & Services
Co-operative Society Ltd (ISCOS), an organisation which supports ex-offenders
and their families. From counselling, career advice to peer support sessions,
he found a friend in ISCOS.
I visited ISCOS on Friday (25 Jan) to officially open their renovated space
named iCosy Hub. The hub is a warm and friendly place for ex-offenders to get
employment assistance, skills upgrading, peer support and educational help for
children.
I am happy to meet Jabez and the staff at ISCOS. ISCOS has done well.”
Mr. Koh’s passion is indeed helping others as illustrated in one of his posts
on Facebook.
(source: The Independent)
MALAYSIA:
Repeal unjust legal presumption provisions, especially for drug offences
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) supports the call for the
abolition of the legal presumptions in the case of possession or trafficking
under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 that shifts the burden of proof on the
accused to prove their innocence, especially for a crime that carries the death
penalty.
Member of Parliament Ramkarpal Singh called for “the abolishment of the death
sentence in drug cases, particularly those which rely on presumptions to
establish the crime.
“Imposing such restrictions on judges through the imposition of such
presumptions is dangerous as a person may be sent to the gallows for a
drug-related offence although the judge might not necessarily be convinced of
his guilt” (Free Malaysia Today, Malaysiakini, 22 January 2019).
Section 37 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 lists down several legal
presumptions, which on the proving of some facts, will apply, thereby shifting
the burden of proof to the accused to disprove the presumption.
Some examples of such presumptions are as follows:-
(b) a person, until the contrary is proved, shall be deemed to be the occupier
of any premises, if he has, or appears to have, the care or management of such
premises;…
(d) any person who is found to have had in his custody or under his control
anything whatsoever containing any dangerous drug shall, until the contrary is
proved, be deemed to have been in possession of such drug and shall, until the
contrary is proved, be deemed to have known the nature of such drug;… (g) if
any dangerous drug is found to be concealed in any premises, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the said drug is so concealed with
the knowledge of the occupier of the premises;…”
In criminal trials generally, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution,
who is bound to prove each and every element of the crime beyond reasonable
doubt.
The accused really do not have the resources or the capacity, unlike the state
or prosecutors, to disprove such presumptions.
How do the accused prove that drugs found in their homes, cars or premises are
not theirs or that they had no idea that these drugs were there? Anyone could
have planted these drugs without the knowledge of the accused, and it is near
impossible for the accused to be able to prove that it is not theirs.
It is different in cases of corruption, where it can be proven that individuals
have received money, etc – eg maybe their accounts show large sums of money,
perhaps thousands or billions of ringgit, far more than what they could have
legally earned. In such cases, applying legal presumptions may be fair.
An example of such a legal presumption, is found in the Malaysian
Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009:
Section 50(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, for example
for offences of corruption and bribery, provides that, if “it is proved that
any gratification has been received or agreed to be received, accepted or
agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be obtained, solicited, given
or agreed to be given, promised, or offered, by or to the accused, the
gratification shall be presumed to have been corruptly received or agreed to be
received, accepted or agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be
obtained, solicited, given or agreed to be given, promised, or offered as an
inducement or a reward for or on account of the matters set out in the
particulars of the offence, unless the contrary is proved….”
But when it comes to drug offences, some of which carry the death penalty, it
may be time to abolish these legal presumptions and to return the onus of
proving all elements of the crime to the prosecutor.
One of the worst of these legal presumptions is the presumption of trafficking,
which really only depends on the amount of the drugs found.
Section 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 states that:
(da) any person who is found in possession of:
(i) 15 grammes or more in weight of heroin;
(ii) 15 grammes or more in weight of morphine;…
(vi) 200 grammes or more in weight of cannabis,…
(ix) 40 grammes or more in weight of cocaine;…
otherwise than in accordance with the authority of this Act or any other
written law, shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be trafficking
in the said drug;
As such, it is certainly more just to repeal this legal presumption. The
prosecution should be burdened with the onus of proving something more than
mere possession in its quest to find someone guilty of drug trafficking, which
still carries the death penalty offence in Malaysia.
The Dangerous Drugs Act was amended during the tenure of the previous
administration to allow for the possibility of a sentence other than the death
penalty. But judges hands are still tied as they are still prevented from
considering all possible mitigating or aggravating factors in sentencing.
Hopefully, this new government will correct the many flaws, which have been
highlighted by many including the Malaysian Bar.
In any event, Madept:
calls for the immediate repeal of legal presumptions in the Dangerous Drugs Act
1952, which shifts the burden of proof to those accused, especially in offence
punishable by the death penalty
calls for the commuting of the death sentence for all those still facing the
death penalty for drug trafficking, ie those who were convicted before the
amendment to the Act that opened the possibility of a sentence other than the
death penalty came into effect
calls also for the release of all those facing detention and/or restrictions
allegedly for drug trafficking under the various laws that allow for detention
with trial, including the Prevention of Crimes Act. They should be either
charged and accorded a fair trial or immediately and unconditionally released.
reiterates the call for the imposition of a moratorium on all executions and
the abolition of the death penalty.
Charles Hector released this statement on behalf of Malaysians Against Death
Penalty and Torture (Madpet).
(source: aliran.com)
BANGLADESH:
Siblings awarded death for killing expat in Ctg
A court in Chattogram today awarded death penalty to 2 siblings on charge of
killing an expatriate in Fatickchhari upazila in the district over land dispute
in 2011.
The convicts are Md Jahedul Alam alias ‘Loha Jahed’ and Khorshedul Alam Kalam
alias ‘Jongi Kalam’, both sons of Late Sirajul Haque from Dhali Kata area in
the upazila, reports our Chattogram correspondent.
Chattogram Divisional Speedy Trial Tribunal Judge Md Abul Halim handed down the
verdict against the duo after the court found them guilty beyond doubt
examining all the records and witnesses, said public prosecutor of the tribunal
Advocate Ayub Khan.
Both the accused were tried in absentia, said the PP.
According to the case statement, the convicts had longstanding feud with Yunus,
a Bangladeshi expatriate in India, of the same area over a piece of land.
Yunus and his cousin Hasan had built a fence on the boundary of the disputed
land triggering an altercation on April 11, 2011. Following the altercation,
the siblings called the duo to come to their house to settle the dispute.
When Yunus and Hasan entered their residence premises, the siblings started
hacking them with sharp weapons locking the gate from inside, the case
statement said.
Hearing their screams, neighbours rescued the injured and informed the police.
Yunus died on the way to hospital
Police arrested the siblings after the incident.
Victim’s wife Khotiza Akter later filed the case with Fatickchhari Police
Station accusing the duo while police pressed the charge sheet against them on
June 05, 2011. A Chattogram court framed charges against the 2 accused later.
Plaintiff’s lawyer advocate Tarun Kishor Deb said 13 witnesses out of total 20
testified in the case.
(source: The Daily Star)
PAKISTAN:
Court commutes death sentence to life term
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of a man
and his two sons in a double murder case to life imprisonment.
A division bench comprising Justice Ghazanfar Ali and Justice Syed Arshad Ali
partially allowed the appeals against the death sentence and converted the
death sentence of Sherzada and his two sons Janur Rehman and Inayatur Rehman to
life imprisonment.
During the hearing, Sahibzada Asadullah, counsel for the appellants, submitted
that the 3 convicts were first charged with killing Behramand and Amir
Muhammad, residents of Rahimabad, Swat district, over a women-related dispute.
He said that the trial court then awarded them the death sentence, against
which they filed the appeal in the high court.
The lawyer argued that the trial court had erred and did not examine important
facts while giving the conviction of death sentence.
He said that the empty holes of the gunfire were not got examined from the FSL
laboratory, from which it could determine whether the persons died of the
gunfire from the convicts or someone else.
The lawyer pointed out that some other important legal facts were also hidden
from the trial court by the counsels for the complainant and prosecution.
Furthermore, he argued that awarding major penalty without solid evidence would
be an injustice to the convicts. He requested the court to set aside the
conviction.
However, the counsel for the complainant and state lawyer opposed the plea of
the convicts and prayed the court to retain the death sentence.
(source: thenews.com.pk)
INDIA:
1st death sentence, lifer awarded in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case
A Delhi court on Tuesday awarded death penalty to convict Yashpal Singh and
ordered life imprisonment to another, Naresh Sherawat, for killing of 2 men
during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots that followed assassination of the then prime
minister Indira Gandhi leaving nearly 3,000 people dead.
In the 1st verdict after the riots-related cases were reopened by a Special
Investigation Team in 2015, the court held that Singh‘s offence fell under the
‘rarest of rare‘ category warranting the death penalty. The Delhi Police had
closed this case in 1994 for want of evidence.
The SIT is investigating nearly 60 cases related to the riots, while it has
filed ‘untraced report‘ in 52 cases.
The court also imposed fine of Rs 35 lakh each on both the convicts and
directed payment of the fine amount as compensation to surviving family members
of deceased Hardev Singh and Avtar Singh.
While this is the 1st death penalty after the SIT was formed, one Kishori was
earlier given the death penalty by a trial court in as many as seven anti-Sikh
riots cases.
However, the Delhi high court confirmed death penalty only in 3 cases, which
were later commuted to life-term by the Supreme Court.
Sikh leaders across parties, including Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh,
welcomed the court decision and hoped that others involved in the riots would
also soon be brought to book for their ‘horrendous and inhuman acts‘.
“Convict Yashpal Singh is sentenced to death for the offence under section 302
(murder) of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). Convict Naresh Sehrawat is sentenced
to life for the offence under section 302 (murder) of the IPC,” Additional
Sessions Judge Ajay Pandey said.
Proceedings were held inside the Tihar Jail by Additional Sessions Judge Ajay
Pandey due to security concerns as 1 of the convicts, Yashpal, was attacked
inside the Patiala House District courts premises on November 15, the last date
of hearing.
The court directed that the complete original case file be submitted to the
Delhi high court for confirmation of the death penalty.
As per the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the death penalty cannot be
executed unless confirmed by the high court.
The convicts have also been awarded varying jail terms and fines for offences
including attempt to murder, dacoity and attacking victims by dangerous
weapons.
The court spared convict Naresh the gallows while taking note of his medical
condition and his lawyer‘s arguments seeking leniency in the quantum of
sentence.
Earlier, the court had convicted Singh and Sherawat for killing Hardev Singh
and Avtar Singh in Mahipalpur area of South Delhi on November 1, 1984 during
the riots that had taken place after the assassination of then Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi at her residence by the 2 Sikh bodyguards a day before.
A mob of about 500 persons, led by the 2 convicts, had encircled the house of
the victims and had killed them.
It was just one of the incidents out of several others Delhi alone during the
riots that saw around 3,000 people being killed.
Of the 650 cases registered in connection with the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi,
267 were closed as untraced by the Delhi Police. Of these 267 cases, 5 were
later taken up by the CBI.
The SIT also scrutinised records of 18 cancelled cases.
The SIT found 60 cases appropriate for further investigation and has filed
“untraced report” in 52 cases in the last 1 1/2 years.
Out of the 8 cases being investigated, charge sheets have been filed in 5,
while the status of 3 cases, in which senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar is an
accused, is 'pending investigation'.
The Congress welcomed the court order saying it was ‘proud‘ that the legal
process was being allowed to work out its course.
Role of several Congress leaders had come under scanner for allegedly inciting
violence during the riots across Delhi and some other places that saw thousands
getting killed, raped, assaulted and their homes burnt.
Tuesday‘s proceedings were held inside the Tihar Jail due to security concerns
as one of the convicts, Yashpal, was attacked inside the Patiala House District
courts premises on November 15, the last date of hearing.
A day later, as the convicts were being taken to the lock-up inside the Patiala
house court‘s premises after the arguments on quantum of punishment, Bharatiya
Janata Party MLA Manjinder Singh Sirsa had slapped Yashpal Singh and slogans
were raised against 2 convicts.
Anticipating a law and order issue, the police requested the court to pronounce
the order inside Tihar.
The SIT had told the court it was ‘brutal murder of 2 innocent young persons
aged around 25 each. It was a planned murder since the accused were carrying
kerosene oil, sticks etc'.
“People from only one community were targeted. It was a genocide. The incidents
had an international effect and it took 34 years to get justice. A signal
should go to the society to deter them from committing such horrible crimes.
This is rarest of rare case which calls for death penalty,” the SIT had said.
However, the advocate for the convicts said that the attack was not deliberate
or planned but a sudden flare up.
The case was lodged on a complaint by victim Hardev's brother Santokh Singh.
The court held both the accused guilty under various sections including 302
(murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 395 (dacoity) and 324 (voluntarily causing
hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC.
Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh described the verdict as long overdue.
“Justice has finally been meted out to the perpetrators of the heinous crimes,”
Amarinder said, while reacting to the of sentencing.
It has taken more than 30 years for the court to deliver justice in this case,
the chief minister noted, adding that he hoped that the other cases would also
be settled by the judiciary soon.
The chief minister also expressed hope that others involved in the attacks
would also soon be brought to book for their ‘horrendous and inhuman acts’.
Sikh leaders cutting across party lines welcomed the decision and vowed to
continue their fight till each and every victim gets justice.
Aam Aadmi Party leader H S Phoolka said it was a great judgement and now the
Sikh leaders are quite hopeful that in other cases also the victims would get
justice.
A Sikh survivor called the judgement “a start”, saying the fight will continue
till they get “complete justice” and bring all perpetuators to justice.
The road to justice
Nov 1, 1984: Hardev Singh and Avtar Singh were attacked and killed by a violent
mob in the Mahipalpur area of South Delhi during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
Feb 23, 1985: Charge sheet filed against one Jai Pal Singh
May 1985: Justice Ranganath Misra Commission formed.
Sep 9, 1985: Affidavit filed by Santokh Singh, brother of Hardev Singh before
Justice Rangnath Misra Commission and investigation was conducted by Anti-Riot
Cell of Delhi Police.
Dec 20, 1986: Jai Pal Singh was acquitted.
1993: A case was registered at Vasant Kunj police station on the recommendation
of Justice J D Jain and D K Aggarwal committee based on Singh's affidavit.
Feb 9, 1994: Delhi Police could not gather evidence to prosecute any accused
and after investigation, an untraced (closure) report was filed which was
accepted by the court.
Feb 12, 2015: Ministry of Home Affairs constitutes SIT for reinvestigating the
1984 riots.
Aug 27, 2016: SIT publishes a public notice in leading newspapers of Punjab and
Delhi requesting people acquainted with the facts of the case to give evidence
about it.
Jan 31, 2017: SIT files its charge sheet naming Naresh Sherawat and Yahspal
Singh and cites 18 witnesses in total.
Nov 14, 2018: Court convicts Singh and Sherawat for killing 2 men in the 1984
riots.
Nov 15: Court reserves order on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to 2
persons for killing 2 men.
Nov 20: A Delhi court awards death penalty to convict Yashpal, the 1st capital
punishment in the case and gives life term to Sherawat.
(source: Herdon Gazette)
********************
14 terror suspects face death penalty in India
14 militants from an armed separatist group were found guilty Monday of
orchestrating a coordinated bomb attack in India’s northeast in 2008 that
killed 88 people and wounded hundreds more.
The accused were charged with multiple murder and explosives offences by a
special court in restive Assam State, where eleven bombs were detonated in
quick succession in October 2008 in one of the state’s worst militant attacks.
At least 500 people were injured in the attack by the National Democratic Front
of Bodoland, one of dozens of armed groups in Assam waging an insurgency
against New Delhi.
The militants will be sentenced on Wednesday and may face death penalty for the
attack.
Investigators have named 22 accused in the bombing, but just 15 were tracked
down to face a years-long trial involving hundreds of witnesses in Guwahati,
the state capital.
Ranjan Daimary, the chief of the Bodoland separatists, was among the 14
convicted on Monday. One of the accused was acquitted.
N.S. Yadav, a chief officer from India’s Central Bureau of Investigations, said
hundreds of witnesses had helped build a detailed and lengthy case against the
accused.
Daimary fled into Bangladesh after the bombings, which went off around noon in
crowded marketplaces in Guwahati and other parts of the state, inflicting huge
casualties.
He was extradited in 2010 and detained, but released on bail in 2013 to
participate in a failed peace dialogue with New Delhi.
The separatist group formed in the 1980s to fight for a separate homeland for
the Bodos, an ethno-linguistic community native to Assam number roughly 1.2
million.
The group has since splintered into factions. Some fight for outright
independence, but others — including Daimary’s faction — want to carve out a
separate state within Assam under Indian rule.
(source: Agence France-Presse)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
