Is recording police investigations considered obstruction of duty?

Question

Accepted Answer

Recording Police Investigations and Obstruction of Duty

The act of recording police investigations is not inherently considered an obstruction of duty; rather, whether it constitutes such an offence is a matter to be determined by the courts based on specific circumstances. While the police have stated that sharing such recordings can impact investigations and potentially violate communication laws, legal interpretations suggest that passive recording does not equate to active hindrance as defined by obstruction statutes.
Legal Interpretation of Obstruction of Duty

Section 186 of the Penal Code, which addresses obstruction of public servants, is understood to refer to active actions that hinder an officer's duties, not passive acts like recording. DAP MP Ramkarpal Singh has argued that the phrase "voluntarily obstructs" is unambiguous and applies only when an individual actively impedes an officer's function. He posits that a passive act of recording does not fall within the scope of this section, and it is for the courts to adjudicate such matters based on evidence, rather than for the police to make a blanket declaration.
Concerns Regarding Transparency and Surveillance

The stance that recording investigations could be an obstruction raises concerns about transparency in law enforcement. Ramkarpal Singh has questioned whether this implies a fear by the police of being observed, drawing a parallel to the potential implications for body cameras on officers and CCTV footage, which are often intended to promote transparency. The general consensus among some legal observers is that recording law enforcement activities, provided it does not actively interfere with their duties, should ideally be encouraged to foster accountability.
Implications of Sharing Recorded Content

While the act of recording itself may not be a crime, Bukit Aman CID director Datuk Huzir Mohamed has stated that the sharing and circulation of such videos can affect ongoing investigations. Such actions could potentially fall under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which pertains to the improper use of network facilities or network services to transmit communications that are offensive or cause annoyance. An offence under this section carries a penalty of a fine of up to RM50,000 or a maximum one-year jail term, or both.
Case Example and Public Rights

The debate has been highlighted by the arrest of student activist Wong Yan Ke, who recorded a police raid and streamed it live online. Wong defended his actions as a precautionary measure and asserted citizens' right to record law enforcement processes, denying any obstruction. His arrest, purportedly under Section 186 of the Penal Code for disturbing the investigation, underscores the ongoing tension between law enforcement's need for investigative confidentiality and the public's right to observe and document the actions of police officers.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Is recording police investigations considered obstruction of duty?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends