Dead inmate’s family wants inquiry re-opened

SINGAPORE — Only days after the Government said it accepted liability for the death of inmate Dinesh Raman Chinnaiah in prison, the family is seeking for the coroner’s inquiry to be re-opened “given the gravity of the circumstances” of his death.

Lawyer M Ravi, who took over as the family’s counsel on Wednesday, has written to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) seeking for the coroner’s inquiry to be completed within seven days.

On Sept 27, 2010, Dinesh Raman died from positional asphyxiation after he was restrained for making an unprovoked attack on a prison officer. Asked in Parliament on Monday why the State Coroner did not continue with the inquiry into Dinesh Raman’s death, Second Minister for Home Affairs S Iswaran had said that this was because the cause and circumstances of his death had already been established in the criminal court.

In a statement yesterday, Mr Ravi said that it is “in the interest of transparency and justice that a public and independent inquiry into Dinesh’s death be allowed to run its full course. His family deserves nothing less”.

While the AGC has said that the prosecution does not have power under the law “to compel the coroner to adjourn or discontinue an inquiry”, Mr Ravi pointed out that Section 26 of the Coroner’s Act states that where the Public Prosecutor “is satisfied that an inquiry is necessary or desirable”, he may require the coroner to hold an inquiry into the death of any person.

When contacted yesterday, the AGC said it has received the letter and will “study the contents carefully before replying”. TODAY understands that the AGC will need to consider whether there were any matters raised in the letter which merit further investigation or a re-opening of the inquiry, or both.

On Monday, Mr Iswaran had said the Government has accepted liability for Dinesh Raman’s death and would compensate his family. He also reiterated that the coroner has the discretion to discontinue with an inquiry when a finding has been made in criminal proceedings as to the cause of and the circumstances connected with the death.

The AGC had explained in a statement last month that the discretion ensures that there is “no multiplicity of proceedings that would be a drain on the state’s resources”.

However, Mr Ravi argued that Section 25 (1) (a) of the Coroner’s Act makes it “obligatory for a coroner’s inquiry to be conducted when a death has occurred in official custody”.

He added that the family wishes to proceed with the inquiry, although it was reported earlier last month that the inquiry was discontinued after the family’s lawyer and officers from the AGC met State Coroner Imran Abdul Hamid in chambers.

Mr Ravi also said that, in Dinesh’s case, “there has been no forensic finding on how, when and where the deceased came by his death, which is the stated purpose of an inquiry into the death, according to Section 27 (1)(b) of the Coroner’s Act”.

In the criminal proceedings into the matter, Lim Kwo Yin, 36, a Prisons Deputy Superintendent, had pleaded guilty to causing Dinesh’s death through negligence. His plea was accepted by the judge who made observations on areas where Lim had failed in his duties leading up to Dinesh’s death.

As no conclusion has been reached on how, when and where Dinesh died through the use of scientific methods and techniques in the investigation, “there is a necessity that the coroner’s inquiry be completed, based on the purpose of the inquiry as defined by the statute, and the circumstances of Mr Dinesh’s death”, said Mr Ravi.