Police corporal admits he shouldn’t have shot at car driven by Aminulrasyid

SHAH ALAM, July 8 — Corporal Jenain Subi admitted in the High Court here today that he should not have fired shots at a white Proton Iswara car driven by Aminulrasyid Amzah, the teenager who was killed in the incident about five years ago.

He also agreed to the suggestion by counsel N. Surendran, who is representing the teenager’s family in the civil suit brought against him (Jenain) and four others, that fleeing from police inspection was not a situation which allowed  him to fire shots at the teenager’s car.

Jenain who is the first defendant, also agreed with counsel’s suggestion that Aminulrasyid ignoring the siren from the police patrol cars pursuing him also did not allow him to fire shots at the car.

“While you fired those shots, there were no indications that Aminulrasyid and his friend in the Iswara BET 5023 were criminals,” Surendran said to which Jenain said, “agree”.

Aminulrasyid’s mother, Norsiah Mohammad, 66, and his eldest sister, Nor Azura, 45, as plaintiffs, have named former Selangor police chief Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar (now Inspector-General of Police), the Shah Alam district police chief, the IGP and the Malaysian government as defendants.

The civil suit was filed to claim damages of almost RM50 million for Aminulrasyid’s death allegedly due to gunshot wounds to the head caused by Jenain’s negligence.

In November 2013, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit and discharge Jenain of a charge of causing Aminulrasyid’s death when he pursued the latter in a car chase in Jalan Tarian 11/2, Section 11, here, between 1.10am and 2am on April 26, 2010.

Jenain, 52, who was at the time attached to the Patrol Car Unit, Shah Alam district police headquarters, said he had fired the shots with an SK MP5 sub-machine gun put to auto mode.

“Why (did you) use the auto mode, not manual,” asked Surendran.

“When I pressed the lever, I might have accidently pressed the auto mode, so when I was shooting, 21 shots were fired straight away,” Jenain replied.

“Did you wrongly set it to auto mode,” questioned Surendran, to which Jenain said, “yes”.

“Because of your mistake, who have fired too many bullets at the car driven by Aminulrasyid,” counsel suggested and the policeman replied, “yes”.

In his witness testimony, Jenain who was represented by lawyer Zulkifly Omar, said while firing the shots he thought the driver of the Iswara car was a criminal who wanted to escape although the latter was ordered to stop, and was pursued by the patrol car he was in, for about two kilometres.

Jenain said he fired the shots at the bottom part of the car with the aim of stopping the car.

“I and the driver of patrol car SL 614 (with Jenain inside) and patrol car SL 589 tried to overtake BET 5023 with our siren on, but the driver of BET 5023 ignored all this,” he said.

Cross-examined by senior federal counsel Normastura Ayub, representing the four other defendants, Jenain said Aminulrasyid drove rather aggressively while being pursued by the police patrol cars, based on the teenager zig-zagging to the left and right to prevent the police cars from overtaking him and beating all the four traffic lights at the Section 9 junctions and at the Kayangan roundabout.

He said the way Aminulrasyid was driving showed the teenager was a skilful and experienced driver.

“I say that seeing the way the Iswara car BET 5023 was being driven that early morning and not stopping when the police asked him to, in your mind the person in the car had committed an offence and trying to escape from being arrested by police,” Normastura said and Jenain replied, “yes”.

“You did not at all suspect the driver of the car to be a 15-year-od boy,” she added, to which Jenain said, “true”.

Also testifying today was the plaintiffs’ last witness, New Straits Times Selangor bureau chief, Tengku Mazlinda Tengku Mahmood.

The hearing before judge Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim continues tomorrow. — Bernama

Related Articles