KINIGUIDE | How badly did police botch investigation into model's death?
KINIGUIDE | On July 30, the Kuala Lumpur High Court issued a landmark ruling, finding that the police and government, among others, were negligent in their duties when investigating the death of Dutch model Ivana Smit.
The court ordered a compensation totalling RM1.1 million to be paid to the deceased’s mother.
The court also issued several additional orders, including a mandamus order compelling further action.
Lawyers believe this could open the door for the families of others in similar cases to take legal action against the government and the police.
This KiniGuide revisits the background of the case and summarises the key findings of the latest court judgment.
What happened in Ivana’s death?
Smit, also known by her legal name Ivana Esther Robert Smit, was an 18-year-old Dutch model whose body was found naked on the balcony of a sixth-floor unit of Cap Square Residences in Kuala Lumpur on Dec 7, 2017, 14 floors below the 20th-floor unit of the American-Kazakh couple, Alexander William Johnson and Lunara Almazkyzy.
CCTV footage showed the deceased entering the lift with the couple the night before. The police detained them for questioning for three days.
Initially, police classified the case as a suicide, with a sudden death report stating that the cause of death was either natural or self-inflicted.
However, Ivana’s mother, Christina Carolina Gerarda Johanna Verstappen, disputed the conclusion. She accused the police of reaching a hasty conclusion without conducting an initial summary investigation.
What did the coroners have to say?
The autopsy at Kuala Lumpur Hospital cited the cause of death as trauma to the chest and abdominal-pelvic area, consistent with a fall from height.
Dissatisfied with the findings, Verstappen repatriated her daughter’s remains for a second autopsy in the Netherlands, which found substantial discrepancies with the first autopsy.
With help from the Dutch government, she succeeded in getting the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to convene an inquest.
On March 8, 2019, the Kuala Lumpur Coroner’s Court ruled that Smit had died due to a “misadventure”, overturning the earlier suicide classification. Still dissatisfied, Verstappen filed an appeal to the High Court the same year.
On Nov 22, 2019, High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah (now a Court of Appeal judge) set aside the misadventure verdict, ruling instead that her death was caused by “death by person or persons unknown” and ordered the AGC to instruct police to reopen the investigation.
When no progress followed, the mother later filed a civil suit on Nov 20, 2020, against the inspector-general of police, investigating officer Faizal Abdullah, the home minister, and the government of Malaysia.
On July 30, 2025, the High Court ruled in Smit’s family’s favour.
Where has the investigation gone wrong?
First, the police prematurely classified the case as suicide before conducting a thorough forensic examination or basic investigation, ignoring the possibility of homicide despite signs of foul play.
Second, they failed to secure the crime scene - namely, Smit’s last known location - allowing it to be cleaned and thus potentially compromising critical evidence.
They also neglected key forensic clues, including grip marks on Smit’s upper arm, head injuries inconsistent with a fall, and Johnson’s DNA found in Smit’s nail clippings, which were either overlooked or insufficiently investigated.
Moreover, police allowed Johnson and Almazkyzy to use their mobile phones while in custody, which enabled them to instruct others to clean the scene, effectively facilitating evidence tampering.
There were additional procedural lapses: delays in forensic analysis, failure to record body temperature to estimate time of death, inadequate review of CCTV footage, and forensic officers arriving at the scene only after eight hours, by which time rain had washed away footprints and other residue at Johnson and Almazkyzy’s balcony.
And despite a DNA analysis finding Johnson’s DNA on Smit’s nail clippings, the couple were allowed to leave Malaysia on March 29, 2018 - about a month after the DNA report was available.
According to judge Roz Mawar Rozain’s ruling, police also ignored key testimony by Dutch forensic expert Frank van der Goot at the inquest.
He disputed suicide as a cause and pointed out signs of trauma inconsistent with a fall, such as the “usual” trauma on Smit’s head and the grip marks on her arm.
What did the court find about the 2019 court order?
Despite the 2019 High Court order to reopen the case as murder, the court ruling on Wednesday found police failed to conduct any meaningful follow-up.
Investigating officer Faizal remained in charge despite a clear conflict of interest, and little progress was made.
While Faizal claimed the case was “still ongoing” and “not closed”, he was unable to present any supporting evidence in court.
A special task force was established five days after the ruling, but the court found no proof of active investigation.
An expert committee was also formed to review the conflicting autopsy reports from Malaysia and the Netherlands, but its findings were never submitted to the court.
The police only requested a Blue Notice from Interpol (which seeks information), instead of a Red Notice (which facilitates arrest), rendering it ineffective in pursuing suspects who had fled abroad.
What findings did the court make against the respondents?
The court found the police and government agencies liable for multiple legal breaches, including:
Malfeasance in public office: Unlawful exercise of discretion that prejudiced the investigation.
Misfeasance and non-feasance: “Reckless indifference” to investigative procedure and failure to perform duties mandated by law.
Breach of duty of care: Failure to conduct a reasonable and professional investigation for the victim’s family, including by providing timely updates.
Breach of statutory duties: Violations of the Police Act 1967, Criminal Procedure Code, and inquest procedures.
Contempt of judicial order: Failure to comply with the 2019 High Court instruction to reclassify and reinvestigate the case as murder.
How much compensation was awarded?
The court ordered RM1.1 million in total compensation:
RM500,000 in general damages for emotional distress, psychological trauma, loss of closure, and related financial expenses;
RM300,000 in aggravated damages due to oppressive conduct;
RM300,000 in exemplary damages to punish gross misconduct in public office and deter similar failure in the future.
Additionally, the sum carries a five percent annual interest from the date of judgment, and the respondents must pay RM100,000 in legal costs.
What other orders did the court make?
The court ordered the removal of Faizal as lead investigator from the special task force.
The police are required to conduct a full and immediate investigation in accordance with the 2019 judgment.
The police must also report progress every three months to the AGC, which must deliberate on the sufficiency of the evidence and decide the next step forthwith.
Which government bodies are being held accountable?
All four respondents were found liable to varying degrees:
The investigating officer, Faizal, bore the greatest personal responsibility for multiple breaches of duty, negligence, and disobeying court instructions.
The inspector-general of police was held indirectly responsible for Faizal’s failings and directly accountable for systemic negligence within the force, including inadequate supervision and failing to ensure investigative standards were upheld.
The home minister had a more limited role but failed to provide administrative oversight, including tracking foreign suspects and ensuring court orders were followed.
The government of Malaysia bears vicarious liability under the legal framework governing public institutions.
What does this ruling mean for the justice system?
In its concluding remarks, the court underscored that this case revealed serious investigative failures by the enforcement authorities.
While acknowledging that complex cases are difficult, the court found clear evidence of procedural lapses and institutional negligence that denied the family’s right to justice.
The judge stressed that the ruling should not be seen as a condemnation of the police force generally, but rather as identifying specific institutional failures that require correction.
“The awards serve both compensatory and deterrent functions, emphasising that public authorities must discharge their duties with appropriate diligence and accountability.”
