jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 10.02.2010 February 10, 2010

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Dihadapan Yang Arif Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah [Rabu]

Before Y.A. ZMD [Wednesday]

***Versi Dalam Bahasa Melayu boleh didapati di akhir post ini dalam warna hijau.

Permohonan pemohon (AI) untuk YA menarik diri dari mendengar perbicaraan kes ini.

Submission by AI for YA to recuse himself from hearing the case

Pihak-pihak ( Parties)
Pemohon (Applicants):    Karpal Singh(KS), CV Prabakaran (CV), Paracumaraswamy (PC), Sankara Nair (SN),  Marissa, RJ,
Responden (Respondents):    Dato’ Mohd Yusof (MY), Hanafiah Zakaria (HZ), Dato’ Nordin Hassan(NH), Noorin Badaruddin (NB), Farah Azlina Latif (FA), Mira Mirna bt Musa dan Naidatul Atirah bt Azman  (Wong Chiang Kiat (CK), tidak hadir)
WB (Watching Brief):        Rajpal Singh,  Andy Yong. Leong, Abdul Syukor Tokachil (Majlis Peguam)
Zamri Idrus (M. Saiful Bukhari)
Mark Trowell [Teoh Lib Peng – penterjemah]

[AI hadir] ([AI present])

[09:35 am]

JB:    Bicara permohonan AI v PR (Hearing of sumission AI v PR)
MY:    Sebelum memulakan ada En Teoh Lib Peng bersama [bagi pihak Mark Trowell]. (Before proceeding, En Teoh Lib Peng is present (on behalf of Mark Trowell))
KS:    Tiada bantahan. (No objection)
The application is for YA to recuse yourself from further hearing this case. Notis Usul and affidavit had been replied and followed by our affidavit, there is NOP received this morning. I don’t want to waste time for this proceeding. What is important is in 1924 said by CJ Hewart in R v Sussex Justices [quoted]  “It is not merely of some important, but of fundamental importance that justice is not only to be done, but what should be  manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
David Anthony case refer .
Whether our court has live up to this expectation? This court must live up to this expectation. The judges did not live up to what expected in them. In this application what is fundamental is, YA is guilty for not saying  what is not true that can be described as false and a lie.
Refer tag 8, Vijayalakhmi Devi v Mahadevi Nadchatiram case refer, the federal court at p. 378  [quoted] “A question of bias or impartiality is a question of facts and should not be disturbed at this level of appeal.”
There is a role of an advocate. YA is not fit to sit on that chair.
International Convention regarding impartiality – Tag 10 @ para 52 [read]
The perception of impartiality is measured by a standard of reasonable observer.
Refer tag 9 para 110 “The Commentary on The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct” [read] .
In relation to impartiality refer case Metramac Corp. Sdn. Bhd v Fawziah Holding Sdn. Bhd. [tag 4] @ pg 523, para 16, 61 and 62 [read].
The complain – affidavit of AI at para 7 – a picture appearing in Utusan Malaysia dated 5th February 2010, top right corner front page of Utusan Malaysia.
Refer para 6 of AI affidavit, caption and tag “Mohd. Saiful Bukhari menunjukkan katil di bilik tidur di mana beliau diliwat kepada Hakim ZMD …” (“Mohd Saiful Bukhari points out to Justice ZMD, the bed in the bedroom on which he was sodomized”)
Para 8 of AI affidavit – that YA said “nothing wrong with that caption on the basis it was evidence given in open court, therefore there is no need for caution.”
YA pronouncement as reported in Malaysiakini, shaded in yellow where YA said the detail were mentioned in open court, and there is no ground for contempt of proceeding. There is ruling made by YA but nothing in the Notes of Proceeding to show it was ever mentioned in open court. This shows YA lied, it is proven, it can be proven and has been proven. YA is not being honest, so YA is bias. The evidence is here, it is a finding of facts, on that ground YA have no alternative but to step down.
On the earlier report in Utusan Malaysia, dated 4th February 2010, para 7 and 8 of AI affidavit referred. This affidavit is a sworn statement by AI, in which MY has  replied. MY affidavit did not made any reference to para 7 and para 8, which amounting to MY acceptance to what I’ve submitted just now.
Our earlier complaint is what in Utusan Malaysia, which is owned by UMNO and the President of UMNO is Najib Tun Razak, which at some point in times, we would labour in court his role in this matter.
At para 4, at 4th Feb 2010 in Utusan Malaysia “tidak rela diliwat lagi”(“could not bear to be sodomzied again”) bold, front page, with the picture of Saiful and AI. At page 3 of Utusan Malaysia “berhenti kerana tidak mahu diliwat lagi” (“resigned because (he) could not bear to be sodomized again”). Clearly this is contemptuous. And what is YA reaction to that?  YA dismissing our application for Utusan be cited for contempt, summary dismissal of our application and said it is not contempt on the face of the court. It does not made any different inside or outside court. Even if it is not inside the court, Utusan is subjected to show cause. YA said that the report does not have intention to be mislead. How could YA come to this conclusion there is no intention, intention is from Utusan and not from this court. Again, this does not show impartiality. YA should issue show cause to Utusan Malaysia or to representative of Utusan Malaysia, but YA decided not to do so. YA is guilty of not telling the truth, which by itself is more than sufficient to come for a conclusion that YA must and have to step down. YA is not fit to sit on that chair and to proceed with the trial.
I pray for YA to step down. So many cases, not as serious as this one, choose to step down. Eg. J KC Vohrah, step down on his own even without application made.
This country must redeem itself to the International community; the country is alright but wrong government. YA must redeem yourself.
A judge cannot lie or and cannot say what is not true. That is all.

MY:    I will start with there is a presumption of impartiality which is recognise in England and in Malaysia.
Refer to Che Minah case, [tag 7] at p 207 held 3 and 5 “impartiality of the judge- there is strong presumption of impartiality of the judge must be upheld.”
Bias is not proven unless the judge has a proprietary and pecuniary interest. The case on point is [tag 2], Hock Hua Bank held 6 [read] “real likelihood of bias can be shown.”
Of course this is no longer the test, the test now as in the R v Gough [tag 1] refer to by other case “Must be real danger of bias, that the court would not be fair to the parties.”
Refer to Tag 1 at pg. 647.
Refer to page 670, para E “I prefer to state the test in terms … he might unfairly regard with favour or disfavour in considering the issue before the court.’

What is the issue before this court, what is reported or an offence under s.377B?
Refer to the case of Tag 3, Locabail held 5 [read].
In our case, whatever is reported in newspaper is extraneous.
In Malaysia, we refer Tag 5, Alor Janggus, held 3, page 78 [read]
Refer tag 2 Hock Hua Bank, other than what Locabail and Alor Janggus said, we take YA to page 228, para G [read].
They’re talking about the case not about minor things as reported by Utusan or any other newspaper.
Refer to Tag 3 Locabail again at para 22 [read]
The law say there is first there is a presumption of impartiality, second, bias can only happen when it involve pecuniary and prioperty interest, law does not assumed bias. Because, third test – real danger of bias. Forth, the real danger of bias when a well informed public would be able to see that the judge will not be able to decide based on evidence and will decide on extraneous matter. This complains against Utusan Malaysia is not an issue to be decided by this court in adjudicating a charge preferred by the State against AI.
The word “lagi’ not uttered by SP1, arose from occasion that which I disputed.  YA respond to that this, that it was not committed in the face of the court. It is not an out-right dismissal. Order 52 Rules of the High Court referred, give you the right to filed an application for Utusan Malaysia to be cited for contempt, but with a leave from the court.
It is wrong to give impression to the public that YA dismissed KS motion just like that. KS conveniently forget about serious allegation towards Utusan Malaysia. This is serious.
Refer to AI affidavit filed this morning.
Para 8 of AI earlier affidavit [read] which at that point of time, the NOP was not yet received from the court. This is a serious allegation. How could they said something like in para 8 without NOP?

Refer to AI reply affidavit, NOP pg. 10 “sebab sebenar saya tak rela lagi’(“the real reason being I could not bear again) and that is not the only time the word “lagi” (” again”)appeared. In fact pg.22 to my question “Apa respon kamu?” (“What was your reply?”) Saiful replied “…saya tidak sanggup melakukannya lagi.”(“I could not bear to do it again”)
KS forgot all allegation that Utusan Malaysia did not report correctly. I replied in my affidavit “I thought I heard he uttered it,”. Now it shows it was uttered.
The basis of KS complaint has been destroyed.
Coming to the second part of the complaint, the photograph, I did passed this remarks, maybe to myself, I do not know if anybody have heard it. It was not in my affidavit. This is what happen when we want to keep information away from people. But KS insisted on. All they have is a photograph. When we talk about affidavit, KS said all must have the right to listen. The caption is ambiguous. I did not reply, as I was reading this, I don’t see any problem. The caption refer to a bed on which the offence took place. Utusan Malaysia did not say this “Katil di atas mana kesalahan itu dilakukan”(“bed on which the offence was committed”). The word tempat (place)refer to katil (bed) or bilik (bedroom)? If it was the room, then it is correct, room and bed was said in the open court. So, YA is correct.
Read Notes of Proceeding at page 22 “Saya ulang jawapan yang sama dengan beliau. Beliau arahkan saya ke bilik tidur utama… waktu itu kamu keluar dari bilik air, nampak dia berada? AI berada di hujung penjuru katil.’ (“I repeated my reply to him. He instructed me me to go to the the master bedroom…at the time when you came out of the washroom, where was he? AI was at the corner of the bed”) It was mentioned in the open court. If what I say is true, then nobody can dispute that, that he was taken to the master bedroom.
To said YA lied is wrong word. To used strong language to a judge, it is wrong, there must be a certain etiquette which must be followed. To quoted Malik Ishak J, this is nearing contempt.
I’m not asking this court to cite for contempt, we can made our point without insulting. This phrase “mischievous”. That is what the law of contempt says.

I used the word ‘malicious”. The reporter was here, he could have heard it wrongly, but there is no malice.

Before I end my submission, I would like to read two passages from two judgment and I undertake to supply the copy later before end of the day.
R v Thomson Newspaper [1968] 1 All ER 268 [read] Held (i)(a) and (b).
The judge is trained to confined themself to the evidence not the newspaper report.
AG v Times [1973] 3 All ER 54, page 71 at para G [read]
At pg. 72, para E and G [read]
A fair and unbias court will decide based on evidence. It is too early to said YA is bias.
That report must have a effect that it will prejudice YA before the evidence is adjudicated. It is just a report.
It is contemptuous if the witness will alter his evidence or refuse to give evidence. I heard there is a report that life of Saiful is in danger. That is contemptuous.
To conclude, I would submit that there is nothing in regard to the matter complaint of and YA act to show or would make a well informed member of the public feel that YA would not be fair and decide on other than the evidence before this court.
The UM report is something ‘remeh’ and extranuos. KS should be concern about the trial and the evidence, YA had ruled against prosecution for the FIR, also on section 51A, we did not say YA is bias.
In case tag 2, Hock Hua Bank Ian Chin J, recused himself because he thought he would be bias, the Court of Appeal directed him to proceed. Refer to held 4 at page 222 [read].
Throughout this proceeding whatever YA decides that adverse to the defence or prosecution, YA will be criticised, but to recuse yourself on the ground you do not want be criticised, YA should not readily recuse. Unless there are circumstances or situation before YA that YA has acted without any objectivity, YA should continue hearing this case and to quoted presumption of impartiality, and to decide only based by facts proved by evidence established by principles of law. We pray for this application to be dismissed.

KS:    The ultimate of this trial, is application of recusal. MY refer to Che Minah case, it is a Court of Appeal decision, he should concentrate on the Federal Court decision. The burden is on us, refer to para 61, applying the test of real danger of bias [read], to rebut it required cogent evidence. By applying the test report of the Utusan Malaysia, MY said that our application is frivolous.
The caption, MY think that refer to the room not the bed. [Read again – caption] SP1 did not give evidence that he pointed to the bed. If it was a room why should he be pointing at the bed? It was clear caption but MY said there is doubt whether it was the bed or the room. Ruling made by YA is in Malaysiakini, “mention in open court’ it was nothing in open court.
YA ought to recuse – important of impartiality.
Refer to Judges Code of Conduct [July 2009] [read].
It is something necessary, I urged YA to reconsider to recuse from hearing this case.

MY:    I would like to invite YA in considering this issue the authority Metramac at Holding No. 1, it is a very good guide.

YA:    Can I see both party in chamber?

Stand down.
[11:15 am]

[11:25 am]

Pihak-pihak seperti terdahulu. (Parties as aforementioned)
YA:    Saya perlukan masa untuk meneliti hujahan-hujahan dan kes-kes yang dikemukakan.

(I need time to consider all statements and referenced cases which have been presented.)

Keputusan pada 18 Februari 2010 (Khamis)

(Ruling on 18 February 2010 (Thursday))

[11:27 am]

++++++++++ Versi Bahasa Melayu ++++++++++++

Dihadapan Yang Arif Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah [Rabu]

10 Februari 2010

Permohonan pemohon (AI) untuk YA menarik diri dari mendengar perbicaraan kes ini.

Pihak-pihak

Pemohon: KS, CV, PC, SN, Marissa, RJ,

Responden: MY, HZ, NH, NB, FA, MM dan NA (CK tidak hadir)

WB:  AY, R. Leong, Abdul Syukor Tokachil (Majlis Peguam)

ZI (M. Saiful Bukhari)

Mark Trowell [Teoh Lib Peng – penterjemah]

[AI hadir]

[09:35 am]

JB: Bicara permohonan AI v PR

MY: Sebelum memulakan ada En Teoh Lib Peng bersama [b/p Mark Trowell].

KS: Tiada bantahan.

Permohonan adalah untuk YA mengugurkan diri sendiri dari terus mendengar case ini. Notis usus dan affidavit telah dijawap dan disusuli dengan affidavit kami, iaitu NOP yang diterima pagi ini. Saya tidaj mahu membuang masa untuk perbicaraan ini.

Apa yang penting ialah pada tahun 1924 yang disebut CJ Hewart in R v Sussex Justices   “Adalah merupakan sesuatu yang mustahak, tetapi asas yang penting ialah keadilan bukan sahaja dilaksanakan tetapi ia dilihat dilaksanakan,”

Kes David Anthony dirujuk

Samada mahkamah telah menjalankan kepercayaan ini? Mahkamah ini mesti melaksanakan kepercayaan ini. Para hakim tidak menjalankan apa yang diharapkan dari mereka. Di dalam permohonan ini, asasnya ialah, YA adalah bersalah kerana tidak menyatakan apa yang tidak benar yang boleh ditafsirkan sebagai salah dan menipu.

Rujuk  tag 8, kes Vijayalakhmi Devi v Mahadevi Nadchatiram dirujuk, Mahkamah Persekutuan  di p. 378  [quoted] “Persoalan tidak adil atau berat sebelah adalah merupakan persoalan fakta dan tidak harus diganggu pada peringkat rayon ini.”

Terdapat peranan sebagai pembela di sini. YA tidak layak untuk duduk di kerusi itu.

Konvensyen Antarabangsa mengenai keadilan =

Konvensyen Anatarabangsa International Convention regarding impartiality -Tag 10 @ para 52 [dibaca]

Persepsi mengenai keadilan diukur melalui tahap pemerhati yang berpatutan.

Rujuk  tag 9 para 110 “The Commentary on The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct” [read] .

Berkaitan dengan keadilan sila rujuk kes Metramac Corp. Sdn. Bhd v Fawziah Holding Sdn. Bhd. [tag 4] @ pg 523, para 16, 61 and 62 [read].

Aduan — affidavit AI di para 7 – gambar yang dipaparkan Utusan Malaysia bertarikh 5th February 2010, di bahagian kanan sebelah atas di m/s depan Utusan Malaysia.

Rujuk  para 6  affidavit AI, keterangan gambar  “Mohd. Saiful Bukhari menunjukkan katil di bilik tidur di mana beliau diliwat kepada Hakim ZMD …”

Para 8 affidavit AI – di mana  YA menyebut  “tidak ada sebarang kesalahan dengan ketrangan gambar tersebut kerana ia adalah bukti di mahkamah terbuka, jadi tidak perlu diberi amaran.”

YA mengumumkan seperti dilaporkan di Malaysiakini, di mana YA menyebut butir2 yang disebut di mahkamah terbuka, dan tidak ada asas untuk disabitkan menghina perbicaraan. Terdpat arahan oleh YA tetapi tidak ada nota perbicaraan yang menunjukkan ia telah disebut di mahkamah, Ini menunjukkan YA tidak bercakap benar, telah dibuktikan. Ia dapat dibuktikan dan telah dibuktikan. YA tidak jujur, bermakna YA tidak adil. Buktinya disni. YA tidak mempunyai pilihan melainkan berundur.

Da dalam laporan terdahulu Utusan Malaysia, bertarikh 4 Februari 2010, para 7 dan 8 affiidavit AI dirujuk. Affidavit ini adalh kenyataan bersumpah oleh AI, di mana MY telah menjawap. Affidavit MP tidak membuat sebarang rujukan kapda para 7 dan 8, yang membawa MY menerima apa yang telah saya usulkan sebentar tadi.

Aduan terdahulu kami ialah apa yang terdapat di dalam Utusan Malaysia yang dimiliki oleh Umno dan presiden Umno ialah Najib Tun Razak, di mana pada sesuatu ketika, beliau mempunyai penglibatan di dalam kes ini.

Di para 4, pada 4 Feb 2010 di dalam Utusan Malaysia “tidak rela diliwat lagi” besr dan m/s depan, dengan gambar Saiful dan AI di m/s 3 Utusan Malaysia “berhenti kerana tidak mahu diliwat lagi”.

Jelas ia adalah “contemptuous.” Dan apakah reaksi YA tentang perkara

ini? YA mengenepikan permohonan kami untuk Utusaan disabitkan

menghina, ringkasan permohonan kami ditolak dan mengatakan ia tidak

menghina mahkamah. Ia tidak mempunyai apa2 perbezaan di dalam ayau

di luar mahkamah. YA menyebut laporan tersebut tidak berniat untuk

mengelirukan.

Bagaimana YA membuat keseimpulan tiada niat, niat dari Utusan dan

bukan dari mahkamah ini. Lagi, ia tidak menunjukkan keadilan. YA harus

member surat tunjuk sebab kepada Utusan Malaysia atau wakil Utusan

Malaysia tetapi YA putuskan untuk tidak membuat demikian. YA

Bersalah kerana tidak bercakap benar, di mana ia mencukupi untuk

Disimpulkan  untuk YA berundur.

Saya berdoa YA akan berundur. Banyak kes, tidak seserius ini, memilih untuk berundur. Contohnya, J KC Vohrah, berundur sendiri tanpa permohonan dibuat.  Negara ini harus menebus maruah sendiri kepada masyaarakat dunia, tiada apa yang salah pada negara ini tetapi silap kerajaan, YA mesti menebus maruah sendiri, Seorang hakim tidak boleh menipu and tidak boleh bercakap apa yang tidak betul. Itu saja.

MY: Saya akan mulakan terdapat ‘presumption of impartiality’ yang diiktiraf di England dan Malaysia.

Rujuk kepada kes Che Minah, [tag 7] di p 207 held 3 and 5 “Ketidakadilan oleh pihak hakim – terdapat andaian yang kukuh di mana ketidakadilan hakim mesti dipertahankan.

Berat sebelah tidak dapat dibuktikan melainkan apabila hakim mempunyai kepentingan peribadi. Kes yang dimaksudkan ialah (tag2) Hock Hua Bank Bank (dibaca) “kepentingan jelas dapat dibuktikan.”

Sudah tentu ini bukan lagi ujian, ujian sebenar ialah did lm kes R v Gough [tag 1] dirujuk oleh kes yang lain  “Terdapat bahaya berat sebelah yang kuat, di mana mahkamah tidak akan adil kepada pihak-pihak terlibat.”

Rujuk ke Tag 1di m/s 647.

Rujuk m/s 670 para E. “Saya cenderung untuk menyatakan ujian yang dimaksudkan….beliau mungkin bertindak tidak adil dgn memihak atau tidak di dalam mempertimbangkan isu tersebut di mahkamah.

Apakah isu di mahmakamah ini, adakah yang dilaporkan atau kesalahan di bawah s.377B?

Rujuk kes Tag 3, Locabail held 5 [read].

Di dalam kes kita, apa yang dilaporkan di akhbar merupakan In our case, whatever is reported in newspaper tidak ada kaitan,

Di negara ini, kita merujuk Tag 5, Alor Janggus, held 3, m/s 78 [dibaca]

Rujuk tag 2 Hock Hua Bank, selain dari apa Locabail and Alor Janggus perkatakan, kami merujuk YA ke m/s 228, para G [dibaca].

Mereka menyebut tentang case dan bukan perkara remeh seperti laporan oleh Utusan atau oleh akhbar lain.

Rujuk  Tag 3 Locabail sekali lagi di para 22 (dibaca)

Undang-undang menyatakan terdapat pada permulaaanya andaian mengenai ketidaksamarataan, kedua, berat sebelah hanya akan berlaku apabila ia melibatkan kepentingan peribadi dan hartabenda, undang-undang tidak membuat andaian berat sebelah. Ujian ketiga ialah bahayanya jika kita berat sebelah. Keempat apabila orangramai dapat melihat apabila hakim gagal untuk memutuskan berdasarkan bukti tetapi berasakan perkara yang tidak berkaitan. Aduan terhadap Utusan Malaysia bukannya isu yang harus diputuskan oleh mahkamah ini di dalam menentukan perubahan oleh negara terhadap AI.

Perkataan ‘lagi’ tidak iucapkan oleh SP1, tetapi dari situasi yang saya sendiri pertikaikan. YA membalas ia bukannya dilakukan di muka pengadilan, ia merupakan “outright dismissal.” Arahan 52 Peraturan Mahkamah Tinggi dirujuk, member anda peluang untuk memfailkan permohonan terhadap Utusan Malaysia untuk di sabitkan dengan memfitnah, tetapi diberikan “leave” oleh mahkamah.

Adalah merupakan kesalahan untuk member gambaran kepada orangramai bahawa YA menolak usul KS begitu sahaja. KS melupakan mengenai tuduhan serius terhadap Utusan Malaysia. Ini sesuatu yang serius.

Rujuk affidavit AI yang difailakn pagi ini.

Para 8 di dalam  affidavit AI terdahulu [dibca] di waktu ketika itu, NOP masih belum diterima mahkamah lagi. Ini tuduhan berat. Bagaiman mereka boleh membuat menuduh di para 8 tanpa NOP?

Rujuk jawapan affidavit , NOP m/s 10 “sbb sbnr sy x rela lagi’ dan itu bukan pertama kali perkataan “lagi” yang kita lihat. Malahan di m/s 22 kepada soalan saya “Apa respon kamu?” Saiful menjawap “…sy tidak sanggup melakukannya lagi.”

KS lupa semua tuduhan Utusan Malaysia tidak dilaporkan dengan betul. Saya menjawap di dalam affidavit saya “Saya fikir saya mendengar dia mengucapkannya.” Sekrang ia menunjukkan ia diucapkan.

Asas tuduhan KS telah musnah.

Berbalik kepada bahagian kedua aduan itu, gambar tersebut. Saya memang menbuat kenyataan ini, mungkin kepada diri sendiri. Saya tidak tahu jika ada sesiapa mendengarnya. It tidak terkandung dalam affidavit saya.inilah yang berlaku jika kita mahu menyembunyikan maklumat kepada orang ramai. Tetapi KS berdegil mengenainya. Apa yang mereka miliki ialah sekeping gambar. Apabila kita berbicara tentang affidavit. KS menyebit semua mesti diberi hak mendengar. Keterangannya tidak jelas. Saya tidak menjawap, apabila saya membacanya, saya tidak nampak apa2 masalah. Keterangan merujuk kepada katil di mana kesalahan dilakukan. Utusan Malaysia tidak melaporkan ini “Katil di atas mana kesalahan itu dilakukan”. Perkataan tempat merujuk kepada katil atau bilik? Jika ia bilik, maka ia betul, bilik dan katil disebut di mahkamah terbuka. Jadi YA adalah bertul.

Baca NOP m/s 22 “Sy ulang jawapan yang sama dengan beliau. Beliau arahkan sy ke bilik tidur utama… waktu itu kamu keluar darr bilik air, nampak dia berada? AI berada di hujung penjuru katil.’ Ia disebut di mahkamah terbuka, jika apa yang sayaperkatakan adalah betul, jadi tiada sesiapa boleh mempertikaikannya beliau dibawa ke bilik utama.

To said YA lied is wrong word. To used strong language to a judge, it is wrong, there must be a certain etiquette which must be followed. To quoted Malik Ishak J, this is nearing contempt.

Saya tidak meminta mahkmah ini untuk menyabit menghina, kita boleh menyatakan hujah kita tanpa menghina. Perkataan ini “berniat jahat”.

Saya menggunakan berniat jahat. Pemberita itu berada disni, beliau mungkin mendengarnya secara salah tetapi tidak terdapat unsur dan niat jahat.

Sebelum saya mengakhiri hujah saya, sya ingin membaca 2 perenggan dari dua penghakiman dan saya akan memberikan salinannya kemudian.

R v Thomson Newspaper [1968] 1 All ER 268 [dibaca] Held (i)(a) and (b).

Hakim tersebut dilatih untuk tidak berat sebelah berdasarkan laporan akhbar

AG v Times [1973] 3 All ER 54, m/s 71 di para G [dibaca]

At pg. 72, para E dan G [dibaca]

Sesuatu yang adil, dan tidak berat ssebelah di mana mahkamah memutuskan berdsarkan bukti.  Adalah terlalu awal untuk menyatakan YA tidak berlaku adil.

Adalah satu kesalahan jika saksi mengubah bukti atau enggan memberikan bukti. Saya mendenngar terdapat laporan nyawa Saiful di dalam bahaya. Itu merupakan peghinaan.

Sebagai kesimpulan, saya ingin nyatakan tiada apa-apa mengenai aduan dan apa-apa untuk menunjukkan YA akan berlaku tidak adil di mata orang ramai.

Laporan Utusan Malaysia merupakn sesuatu yang remeh dan tidak berkaitan dengan kes. Ks sespatutnya lebih menumpukan perhatian kepada kes dan bukti. YA telah memutuskan bagi FIR, juga di dalam Seksyen 51A, kami tidak mengatakan YA berat sebelah.

Sepanjang perbicaraan ini, apa yang YA nasihat dan putuskan yang tidak memihak kepada pihak pembelaan, YA akan dikritik. YA tidak sepatutnya berundur sehingga terdapat keadaan atau situasi di mana ia memudaratkan kedua pihak.

YA mesti meneruskan perbicaraan ini dan kami berdoa permohonan ini ditolak.

KS: Tujuan utama perbicaraan ini ialah permohonan untuk mengugurkan. Beban untuk menunjukkan bukti ialah di pihak kami. Laporan Utusan Malaysia, MY menyebut pemohonan kami remeh.

Keterangan, MY fikir ia dirujuk sebagai bilik dan bukan katil (baca sekali lagi keterangan) SP1 tidak memberi bukti beliau menunjuk kea rah katil. Jika ia bilik, mengapa ia menunjiuk ke arah katil? Ia merupakan keterangan yang jelas tetapi MY menyebut terdapat keraguan samada ia merupakan bilik atau katil.

YA harus mengugurkan diri sendri – kepentigan untuk tidak berat sebelah.

Saya menggesa YA berundur dari terus mendengar kes ini.

MY: Saya ingin menjemput YA untuk mempertimbangkan isu Metramac di Holding No 1, ia bagus untuk dijadikan panduan.

YA: Boleh saya jumpa kedua pihak di kamar?

Tangguh

[11:15 am]

[11:25 am]

Pihak-pihak seperti terdahulu.

YA: Saya perlukan masa untuk meneliti hujahan-hujahan dan kes-kes yang dikemukakan.

Keputusan pada 18 Februari 2010 (Khamis)

[11:27 am]

Comments»

1. Observer - February 10, 2010

I really don’t understand the Judge. He rejected the application to cite Utusan Umno for contempt. The least he could do is to caution Utusan to be fair in their reporting.

Any reasonable man would come to a conclusion that Utusan is malicious in its reporting. Their main intention and that of Umno is to tarnish Anwar’s image to the hilt. Beats me why the prosecution is defending Utusan as if they were their client. Yusof has been defending Utusan every corner of the way.

I think Karpal is right in asking the Judge to recuse himself. The cross-examination would be explosive since it involves Najib. We don’t want Karpal to be interrupted by the Judge later by the word ‘irrelevant’, ‘irrelevant’ and ‘irrelevant’ just like the Sodomy 1 case.

2. Analyser - February 11, 2010

Personally, I don’t know if Anwar did it. But I do agree with Karpal to recuse the judge from continuing with the case if he feels that it will be bias against his client. That’s what a good lawyer should do and Karpal is a very good lawyer. similarly the prosecution must do whatever they can to prove that Anwar is guilty so I think its fair for them to defend Utusan if it will help them win the case. Its not the prosecution’s responsibility to help the defense similarly Karpal cannot throw the towel even if he knew for a fact that Anwar is guilty. That is the legal process! So guys, try to be objective!

LA - February 11, 2010

You said, ” fair for them (pros’n) to defend Utusan, if it help them with the case”. That is what contempt of court is all about lah. If you said Utusan’s reporting would help them win the case, then Utusan had clearly committed contempt of court.

In Sodomy 1, the Judge is so afraid of citing Mahathir for blatant contempt of court when during the proceedings, Mahathir had informed the whole world that Anwar is guilty of sodomy.

Is the Judge so afraid of Utusan that he could not just caution them and be fair in their reporting. With the Pros’n defending Utusan, then the allegation that this sodomy charge is a conspiracy hatched by Umno/Gani Patail/ Musa Hasan and is a serial of sodomy 2 lends further credence.

Analyser - February 11, 2010

I didn’t say that Utusan’s reporting helped the prosecution but “IF” they helped, I’m sure the prosecution would take advantage of it. Similarly, if the blogs helped the defence, they would do whatever they can to make sure that the assistance is continued. So let the Judge decide on whether there is a need to recuse himself. Its the process of the court anyway. Lets not just jump into conclusions like that. Give the judge a fair chance like anyone else!

Hantu Siber - February 11, 2010

Analyser,

I’m so surprised u can write this and I quote ;

” … Karpal cannot throw the towel even if he knew for a fact that Anwar is guilty. ”

Wow! No comment.

3. Pious - February 11, 2010

Analyser, I strongly agree with you but I believe if you are guilty, however good your lawyers are you’ll still lose the case. On the other hand, if he is innocent, I am very sure that he won’t be convicted. Allah won’t allow a innocent man be punish unless its for a very very good divine reason!

4. PKR - February 11, 2010

If MY is so sure that KS accusation of YA is baseless then he (MY) should cite KS for contempt and get him out of the way! MY isn’t so confident I guess!

5. Hantu Siber - February 11, 2010

What YA had done to reject the application is clearly to ensure that the trial can proceed without interruptions. He did however advise KS that if he is still unsatisfied with UM (and his decision), he can file a police report. The police can also then investigate how UM was in the room taking photos. Just as simple as that but I presume, delaying the case is one way of defense.

If KS preach freedom of the press, let UM report as they did with reporting on what is going on with the proceeding. The rakyat want to know what is being said and what transpired during the trial. I lauded Malaysian Story for their efforts to produce transcripts like these as it has not been done before. This is really amazing and truly freedom of press, in the cyber world. They use technology for a better society. So that people won’t repeat a closing remarks like this “This country must redeem itself to the International community; the country is alright but wrong government. YA must redeem yourself.”

6. PKR - February 11, 2010

You got a point there but its not what was raised by KS, among others, UM cannot publish In Camera materials as it was done outside public view. Thus it imply that one of them present is leaking information to the press which is worse.

7. Jalan Duta - February 11, 2010

the pix publish on the front page of UM is not taken by UM photographers. The pix and caption was solely owned by Bernama who was the only reporter who followed the session at the condo. Dtas y there’s `- Bernama’ at the end of the caption.

Analyser - February 11, 2010

I thought its not supposed to be published.

Jalan Duta - February 11, 2010

wats not to be published is the details happened in the in-camera procedings. From what i knw, the visit is not a part of the in-camera proceding.

8. Analyser - February 12, 2010

Then its fair for KS to recuse for not telling UM off when they reported inaccurately with malicious or mischievous intention.

9. Anak Malaysia - February 12, 2010

Why been bias with UM as if others newspaper are soo accurate, so accountable, so transparent and so not racist!!

Tiger - February 12, 2010

KS had mention in his “hujah” the reason why UM is bias. So go and read the postings!

Urban - February 12, 2010

UM only interest is to tarnish Anwar’s image amongst the kampong malays who reads only UM.

Urban malays know this is a ‘joke’ trial hatched by Umno.
According to rpt made by Saiful on 28 June 08, he has been buggered for the past 2 months by Anwar against his will. The last was on 26th. Buggered against his will? Yet on 26th he go and open his pants again to be buggered? Can you believe this? And on 24th he went to see Najib complaining being buggered.

Q. Why on 24th did not make police rpt after meeting Najib?
A. They can’t fix the place and time where he is buggered. That is why Saiful can’t make rpt. So they hatched a plan to have him ‘buggered’ on 26th at that condiminium.

Urban malays know this is cartoon story. Rural malays don’t know and has to depend on Utusan Umno. That is why KS go after utusan.

10. Joelabi - February 12, 2010

Do not make wild accusation or baseless insinuation just because things don’t go your way. Nothing seems to stop those with greed for power and wealth to get what they. Whether the alternative party is good or bad, it will at least works as a balance check. Mindset change is very crucial and I don’t see that the “people” understands this!!

11. Mousee - February 12, 2010

Who knows?.. it is typical in Msia…Obviously something was not right. Either they were too stupid to be cheated in the daylight or they were very smart to cheat the nation for their own personal benefits. They could come up with all the justifications for their decision, technically appear to be all were in order but on moral ground, they have to live with their guilty conscience forever. The truth will surface sooner or later.

12. Hantu Siber - February 12, 2010

Urban Malay ridiculing Rural Malays. Wonder where does Urban Malay originate from?

Urban - February 12, 2010

hantu don’t be so naive lah. Urban and rural is an ordinary and common sense terminology which everybody uses to refer to those who lives in urban areas and rural areas. Urban folks have access to modern facilities and internet is one of them. Rural folks are not so accessible to such facilities.

Ini pun tak tahu ke. Rural malays means those who live in rural areas which are devoid of modern facilities. Don’t you read the Government economic rpt where the term urban and rural is used. Don’t you read the Gov’t educational rpt that distinguishes between Urban dan Rural school.

13. anti tipu - February 12, 2010

urban,

in a way…u agreed that Anwar did it? Anwar did put his cock inside Saiful? then it’s a done deal…

not surprise at all…since Azmin is saying the same thing at the public gallery…for real!

Urban - February 12, 2010

I did use the word “hatched’ by Umno lah. Go and find out the meaning of ‘hatch’ first and then comment on what I say.

Hantu Siber - February 12, 2010

It seems funny, your definition of Rural Malays are those who live in rural areas which are devoid of modern facilities but still, UM can reach them? What about Radio, TV (and Satellite TV), Ceramah and Handphones?

Do you know that the Penetration Rate of Cellular Phones in Malaysia for the 4th Qtr of 2009 is 106.2% with a total subscription of 30.4 million? This means that everybody have more than 1 handphone. My brother has 10! (sorry Datuk if you happen to read this).

But what is the use of a PC with a broadband modem to the Rural Malays compared to having a Kubota to plough their padi fields or a John Deere to tend their orchards? Guess their priorities are different from you Urban Malay.

By the way, is there anymore “kampong terceruk” in Malaysia, if you can name some? My previous job was to travel from Padang Besar to Johor Bahru and back every week conducting maintenance surveillance . And I use 0*3 (sorry Maxis and DiGi) for communication. What I saw and would like the Government to do is to upgrade the facilities for our Orang Asli.

Wow, wow! I’m already out of topic. Has KS make a police report about UM?

Chill …

Pao Kung - February 17, 2010

Dear Urban, I notice that you are quite naive and blind to the evidence provided by the prosecution. If you are so dammed sure that this are all fabricated by UMNO, why don’t you just pass the evidence or at least help KS with his appeal so that you can expose UMNO’s plot. Otherwise I think you are being very unreasonable.

14. Malaysian - February 12, 2010

Why don’t you guys give the court a chance to prove that Malaysian courts is as fair as any court in the land if not fairer!

15. Anak Malaysia - February 13, 2010

Urban,

I bet you don’t even care to read up any Bahasa Melayu paper coz’ sure make you less URBAN MALAY. By the way don’t underrate ORANG KAMPUNG and Don’t idolize your Mr. Straight Guy so much, later on you might be the next “Saiful”. If you can provide such evidence I will be the first one to support you. So justice will prevail..

16. kadiology - February 14, 2010

wei. what are you waiting for. cross examine la SP1. apa KS takot? dont waste time with this bullshit talk about utusan laaa. cross examine now la. why delay? so many news paper have front page pictures of the kondo room. this include thestar, bharian, sin chew, why attack utusan only? so after utusan, attack the star, and then berita hartian, and then sin chew. delay delay delay!

woi cross examine la and please dont delayyyyy.

17. Ali Baba - February 15, 2010

Hei kardiology, be patient and let the law take its own course!

18. Court of Appeal - February 17, 2010

A very good decision today(17 Februari 2010) from the Court of Appeal on Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal to strike out the Sodomy charges so that justice can be done. The rakyat want to see that no one is above the law. The very least is that the weaker ones like Saiful can have his day in Court!

19. Anwar Supporter - February 17, 2010

Say all you want now, I am sure that the defense will have their day when all the foriensic and DNA experts are in court to refute the prosecution’s so called evidence! I am very confident that the foreign experts will be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence is not conclusive and not sufficient to warrant even a trial not to say convict AI!

20. Rakyat - February 18, 2010

The biting wit between YB Kulim and Little Pharaohs’ are becoming even more obvious and deep in PKR. For the public ,its’ has more to do with bigoted attitudes and snooty approaches by the Godfather of PKR itself. Seems he is also mere mortal like everyone else.We trust that the truth will out, the sooner the better..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: