Chapter 2 - Report of the Complaints, Monitoring and Inquiries Group The Panel also made site visits to: • Dataran Merdeka and its surrounding areas – Jalan Tun Perak, Masjid India, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman and the DBKL building – where members of the public had gathered; and • Kompleks Pasukan Simpanan Persekutuan Polis DiRaja Malaysia, Cheras where the police demonstrated the use of razor wire, tear gas, command vehicles and sound commanders, and explained procedures on crowd control. (b) Findings of the Inquiry The Panel’s findings were based on the testimony of witnesses, assisted by questions and submissions from observers and the exhibits tendered. (i) The Panel questioned the necessity to erect barricades that comprised three layers: Dannert wire (or razor wire), water-filled barriers and steel barriers. The suitability of using Dannert wire, especially where large crowds were expected to congregate, was also considered. However, the Panel made no finding as to the legality or installation of the barricades, whether pursuant to the Court Order or section 26 of the Police Act 1967. (ii) The Panel was able to establish that the Federal Reserve Unit had issued an initial warning to participants to disperse before water cannon and tear gas were deployed, but none thereafter. In addition, the warning could not be heard by participants although it was delivered via a loudspeaker and sound commanders. The Panel found that the police did not assist or facilitate the dispersal of the participants. (iii) The Panel found that the police did not assist or facilitate the dispersal of the participants, while the continuous firing of water cannon and tear gas hampered efforts to disperse. This resulted in at least one instance of the ‘kettling’ of the participants. (iv) The Panel was of the view, based on testimonies and video recordings, that there was use of disproportionate force and misconduct by police towards the participants. Some were assaulted along the way to the holding area at Dataran Merdeka, even though there was no evidence that they were resisting arrest or behaving aggressively. (v) 64 It appeared to the Panel that the police had acted in bad faith, with their action suggesting that there were deliberate attempts to prevent the media from reporting and taking photographs of various incidents that day. These attempts at preventing the media from discharging their role and responsibilities were clearly a breach of freedom of expression and media freedom. The Panel was of the view, based on testimonies and video recordings, that there was use of disproportionate force and misconduct by police towards the participants.