The name Sheila is often associated with celebrities – Sheila Majid, Sheila on 7, Sheila Mambo – to name a few. Recently, new to the scene and in the limelight is Inspector Sheila Sharon Steven Kumar, who is the media’s and netizens’ new obsession.
Inspector Sheila is a policewoman whose name blew up in social media after several videos involving her went viral. In one of the videos, she can be seen gesturing aggressively and speaking rather rudely to a lower ranking fellow police officer. In another she is seen again talking rather sternly to another police officer. In the third video, Inspector Sheila appears to be taunting a woman in a parking lot while making remarks over her appearance.
It is unclear from the videos what exactly the dispute was between Inspector Sheila and these other persons. What is clear though is that many netizens felt Inspector Sheila was rather laud, aggressive and disrespectful to the people she was speaking to in those videos.
As things transpired, in late June, she was charged with three criminal offences at two separate Magistrate’s Court in Selayang. The first charge is under Section 506 of the Penal Code for criminal intimidation of a 69 year-old woman. The second charge is under Section 509 for insulting the modesty of a 41 year-old man, while the third charge is under the same provision but in respect of a policeman of a lance corporal rank.
At the point of writing this piece, Sheila pleaded not guilty to all the charges levied against her.
Question is – would the charges against her be sustainable? Let’s look at the legal hurdle that the Prosecution would need to cross to prove each of the offences that Inspector Sheila has been charged for.
In an offence of criminal intimidation, the Prosecution would need to prove that Inspector Sheila committed the following:
Limb 1: Threatened to injure the victim’s self / reputation / property; and
Limb 2: The threat was made with intent to cause alarm to the victim; or
the threat was made with intent to cause the victim to do any act which the victim is not legally bound to do OR from doing any act which the victim is legally entitled to do in order to avoid the threat from happening.
In an offence of insulting the modesty of a person, the Prosecution would need to prove that Inspector Sheila committed the following:
Limb 1: Uttered any word, made sound or gesture, or exhibited any object, with intention to insult the modesty of the victim; and
Limb 2: Intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by the victim or intrudes upon the privacy of the victim.
Whilst many netizens have judged Inspector Sheila guilty in the court of public opinion, it is important to remember that in the Court of law, one is innocent until proven guilty. At this point, the full facts of each case have yet to be unveiled, documentary evidence and sworn testimonies have yet to be adduced. It remains to be seen whether Inspector Sheila will be held guilty or if any twist in the tale would emerge.
Given the colourful and flamboyant personality that Inspector Sheila appears to project in public, this trial promises to be a very entertaining one.
Hold on tight, the show has just begun!
About the Author
Afiq Iskandar is a Legal Associate of XK Law. He graduated from MARA University of Technology, Malaysia. Afiq has multiple interests in life beyond reading law viz. sports, film, music and poetry. He believes that art, in whatever form they may be, is a necessity of life.
