The Right to be Informed of the Grounds of Arrest

Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution gives an arrested person the right to be 'informed as soon
as may be of the grounds of his arrest'.
In Abdul Rahman v Tan Jo Koh, the Federal Court referred to and approved the principle
enunciated in Christie & Anor v Leachinsky, where the English House of Lords held that a
person arrested on suspicion of committing an offence, is entitled to immediately know the
reason for his arrest. It was also held that if the reason was withheld, the arrest and detention
would amount to false imprisonment, until the time he was told the reason.
The justification for such right is to ensure that the accused person will know why he is arrested
and have sufficient information in order to enable him to defend himself at the police station.
Such aright is also important for an effective right to counsel.
In this case, Sazali Othman was informed by the police that he was being arrested for taking
part in an unlawful assembly. Thus his right to be informed is fulfilled.
The Right to Counsel
Article 5(3) also gives an arrested person the right 'to consult and be defended by a legal
practitioner of his choice'. This right envisages two separate scenarios; consultation at the police
station upon being arrest and representation in court. The right to consult counsel as envisaged
by Article 5 (3) extends not only to arrests under Criminal Procedure Code but also to arrests
under the Restricted Residence Enactment and even the Internal Security Act
The right to consult a lawyer should be an unqualified right and should commence immediately
upon arrest. The rationale for such right, is to ensure that an arrested person may properly defend
himself against his arrest and not merely when he is charged in court. This is to ensure that the
authorities do not resort to questionable means against the suspect during the course of their
investigations, or even if they do, the suspect would be able to protect himself against it.
In this case, Sazali Othman requested to see a lawyer but that request was denied. Therefore, his
constitutional right to counsel was infringed.