jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth –16 August 2010 August 16, 2010

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Sodomy II, Transformation in PKR.
Tags: , , , , ,
trackback

******* The Full English Version (In Blue) After “+++++++++++”

Di Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL

Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

Permohonan Mengenepikan Pertuduhan

Pihak-pihak:

PP:      Semua hadir

PB:      KS, SN, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Radzlan, (Marissa, Ram Singh, Datuk Param Cumaraswam tidak hadir)

WB:     Andy Yong (Bar Council), Mark Trowell (QC for the Law Asia, CLA and ICJ)

AI hadir

Keputusan 44-176-2010

[9.14 a.m.]

YA: [read his decision]

DSAI, pemohon dalam notis usul memohon agar Mahkamah membatalkan  pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan yang sedang dihadapi oleh beliau. Permohonan ini disokong dengan afidavit sokongan pemohon. Pemohon mendakwa Cik Farah Azlina (FA) mempunyai privy kepada kertas siasatan, FA mempunyai hubungan sulit dgn SP1, SP1 telah diberi taklimat mengenai kandungan kertas siasatan melalui hubungannya dengan FA dan berikutan dari itu, intergriti dan kebebasan pendakwaan terhadap Pemohon telah terjejas.

Pendakwa membantah permohonan ini dan memfailkan dua afidavit balasan yang  diikrarkan oleh Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria dan Jude Blacious. Dalam afidavit, pihak Pendakwa tidak menafikan atau mengesahkan terdapat hubungan antara Cik FA dengan SP1 tetapi hanya menegaskan peranan Cik FA dalam kes ini hanya tertumpu pada mencatat keterangan yang diberi oleh saksi dalam Mahkamah. Oleh itu, SP1 juga tidak mempunyai akses kepada maklumat yang ada dalam kertas siasatan.

KS berhujah dan mendesak agar Mahkamah menerima apa yang dinyatakan oleh Pemohon dalam afidavitnya sebagai benar kerana tiada sebarang penafian dari mana-mana anggota pasukan Pendakwaan berhubung hubungan sulit antara FA dengan SP1. Dengan wujudnya hubungan antara FA dan SP1, maka terdapat salah guna proses Mahkamah.

PCN II telah berhujah bahawa Afidavit Pemohon melanggar Aturan 41 Kaedah 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi. Apa yang dinyatakan dalam afidavit tersebut   merupakan dengar cakap dan tidak boleh diterima pakai. Berdasarkan kecacatan ini, maka tidak ada apa-apa yang perlu dijawab oleh Responden Atas alasan ini sahaja permohonan harus ditolak.

KS tidak menafikan bahawa Aturan 41 Kaedah 5 terpakai tetapi menegaskan bahawa apa yang dinyatakan oleh Pemohon dalam Afidavitnya memenuhi keperluan bawah aturan 41 Kaedah 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi dan bukan dengar cakap.

Saya bersetuju sekiranya permohonan pemohon dibenarkan, maka perbicaraan kes ini akan terhenti dan dengan itu akan melupuskan hak pihak-pihak yang terlibat. Oleh itu ia bukanlah sesuatu yang berbentuk interlokutari di mana sesuatu afidavit yang hendak diguna pakai boleh sekadar mengandungi kenyataan mengenai maklumat atau kepercayaan tersebut seperti diperuntukkan di bawah Kaedah 5(2) kepada Aturan 41 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi. Oleh kerana  sifat permohonan ini yang bukan bersifat interlokutari, Aturan yang terpakai adalah Aturan 41 Kaedah 5(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi. Ini bermaknan perkara yang hendak dinyatakan dalam afidavit mestilah terhad kepada fakta yang Pemohon boleh buktikan berdasarkan pengetahuannya sendiri.

Responden dianggap mengakui bahawa fakta yang ditegaskan oleh Pemohon    dalam afidavit adalah berdasarkan pengetahuan Pemohon sendiri atau dari rekod yang Pemohon mempunyai akses. Ini menepati keperluan Aturan 41 Kaedah 5(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi.

Setelah menimbang dakwaan dalam Afidavit pemohon yang lebih bersifat andaian dan kepercayaan Pemohon semata-mata berhubung isu ini dengan apa yang ditegaskan oleh Jude Blacious dan Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria berhubung isu tersebut. Dari penjelasan kedua-dua mereka ini, adalah munasabah untuk memutuskan bahawa walaupun FA merupakan seorang dari kumpulan dalam pasukan pendakwaan tetapi oleh sebab pasukan pendakwa bertindak atas ‘need to know basis’ dan peranan FA yang begitu terhad maka FA tidak pada bila-bila masa mempunyai akses kepada kertas siasatan atau salinan kertas siasatan termasuk apa-apa dokumen di dalamnya. FA juga tidak terlibat dalam sebarang taklimat berhubung strategi pengendalian kes. Memandangkan FA sendiri tidak mempunyai akses kepada kertas siasatan atau dokumen berkaitan serta mempunyai pengetahuan berhubung kandungan kertas siasatan atau dokumen atau strategi pendakwa, maka tidak mungkin SP1 mempunyai akses kepada kertas siasatan atau mempunyai maklumat apa yang terkandung dalam kertas siasatan melalui FA.

[]

[]

[]

Peranan FA hanyalah setakat mengambil nota keterangan di Mahkamah. Dia bukan seorang Pendakwa Raya yang membuat keputusan untuk menuduh pemohon. Perjalanan dan arah tuju pendakwaan kes ini bukan ditentukan oleh FA. Dia bukan seorang dari yang mengendalikan pemeriksaan saksi. Dalam keadaan demikian saya berpendapat apa-apa pengaruh SP1 ada atas FA hasil dari hubungan mereka tidak mungkin dapat mempengaruhi pasukan pendakwaan sehingga mengkompromi intergriti dan kesaksamaan pasukan Pendakwa.

Saya dapati tiada apa salah guna proses mahkamah di dalam kes ini bagi membolehkan Mahkamah membatalkan pertuduhan yang dihadapi Pemohon.  Oleh itu permohonan pemohon ditolak.

[9.28 a.m.] Application dismissed.

Kes No. 45-9-09

Pemeriksaan balas SP2

[9.48 a.m.]

MY: Kes untuk pemeriksaan balas SP2.

KS: Before we proceed with the trial, as lawyers we are trained to accept decision of the court but sometimes it’s quite critical that the decision should []. It is quite clear that there is inconsistency in the judgment given. We intend to go on with this matter to the Court of Appeal. We’ve filed the notice of appeal this morning. In the  meanwhile, we’ve planned for a stay proceeding. In any event, we cannot make  it orally. We are going to file an application and accompany by affidavit and my learned friend should reply. We need time. We will serve this.  Could we adjourn to tomorrow morning for the application for stay to be heard? I cannot see how the proceeding can continue now.

MY: I’m objecting for the application of stay pending appeal. We need to proceed. We’ve postponed this case for too long. Until the application filed and heard, I think we should proceed with the trial.

KS: My learned friend is being petty. He should not here to push to prosecute. As a matter of right, the accused has the right to file an appeal and as of right he has the opportunity to file an application for stay.

YA: That’s all?

KS: For the moment, yes.

YA: I agree with MY that unless there is an application made and order for stay, the trial should.

KS: Unless with application. Your Lordship has said that.

YA: As far as I’m concern, there is no application file before me yet. That’s my order. I’ve made my order. Proceed. MY, where is your witness?

KS: Your Lordship can’t make an order that is frivolous.

YA: Call the next witness

KS: This is unfair. We can’t just sit here and allow injustice done. I will not be intimidated.

YA: Be careful with your words.

KS: We would like a short break before we proceed.

MY: When in lower court, [] we should proceed

KS: We will proceed, but we need to take a break for the defence discuss with our strategy.

YA: I take your word that you need ½ hour. You can have your own strategy.

KS: Yes. Subject to that strategy. We’ve the right. You cannot deny the right. Your Lordship should not []

YA: After ½ hour break, we’ll proceed to cross-examination SP2.

KS: Depends on what we have to say. Condition should not be attached. Subject to our strategy and what we have to say.

YA: So you said you are not going to cross-examination him?

KS: Subject to strategy. I take instruction from my client. Your Lordship can’t deny that.

YA: ½ hour and then we’ll proceed with cross-examination.

[9.57 a.m.] Stand down

[10.51 a.m.]

KS: [] my learned friend has considered the order made by your Lordship.

YA: I think you  silap dengar my judgment. Itu adalah bawah Aturan 41.

KS: It is for striking out the charge. It must be a final order and under such circumstances the charge should be struck out. Your Lordship said unless there  is an application for stay. We did not contemplate what is your Lordship decision and therefore no application for stay is made. There is no such thing as oral application for stay of proceeding.

I refer to case of Kosma, last para [read] The application must be file by way of an affidavit and how can we file it unless we have the time. We were given time before. This is precedent set by your Lordship yourself. And MY ought not to try to persuade your Lordship not to do that. Your Lordship is bound by the decision of the Federal Court. Why unholy haste? We are not delaying the proceeding. We ask what we are entitled as of right. We don’t beg because this is our right. I believe in demanding. In fact, we are demanding what DSAI is entitled to. We need time to file the application for stay. We need until afternoon. We can even continue after five.

YA: So I take it you want to file it this afternoon?

KS: Yes. We can proceed with the trial perhaps till evening and night.

YA: KS tak puasa.

KS: This is as of right. You cannot deny the right. This is a matter of discretion and in the spirit of Ramadan; you cannot go against the application I’ve made. Your Lordship is bound by the authority. Any real prosecutor will agree with our argument.

YA: I’ve to hear MY.

KS: Yes. You can hear but should not unnecessarily influenced by him. He is the SGII. He must be fair and ensure a fair trial. More so, your Lordship. Give us what is due to us. We’ll come back in the afternoon. I will file it within an hour.

YA: Itu sahaja?

KS: Yes. Let justice prevail.

YA: MY?

MY: I don’t know what to say. Justice is said too many times. For once, I agree with my learned friend that we must do justice. To apply for a stay is not a right. It is a grey area. What your Lordship ruled [] The word decision under Section 3 Criminal Procedure Code and [] does not amount to stay. I’m objecting in principle.

my learned friend has given undertaking []

YA: 2.15 p.m.?

KS: It could be a little more than that.

YA: But please. 2.15 p.m. is 2.15p.m., not 2.30 p.m. Just now you said you need ½ hour to file the application, but you took more than that.

KS: We were outside waiting for your Lordship.

KS: You were not here. I was about to come up but you were not here. So now you want to blame the court?

MY: We’ve the authority ready for the last time.

YA: Just nice. Now is 11. So, you have more than 1 hour to file. In fact, you have 2 hours to file it. 2.15 p.m. we’ll assemble again.

[11.01 a.m.] Stand down

[3.08 p.m.]

Permohonan 44-186-2010

KS: The notice of appeal against your Lordship ruling has been and following that application, the application for stay has been filed in the Court of Appeal. The ground of appeal is founded and supported by the affidavit of DSAI which had been filed just now. At this point, your Lordship should consider whether no.1 the ruling made by your Lordship is a final order. I refer to Section 3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964. [read Section 3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964] we say here that the ruling made are one which would finally dispose the right of the parties. If the charge is struck out, that is the end of the matter. It finally disposed the right of the parties.

The 2nd requirement is whether the position would be nugatory if your Lordship continues with the trial. I refer to the case of Kosma. [Refer Para 1 of case and read nugatory part]. We say the matter will become nugatory if your Lordship continue with the trial and the Court of Appeal  decides the charge to be stuck out and that will be special circumstances – nugatoriness. Under these special circumstances, we apply for the application be allowed. As simple as that.

MY: With regard of the 1st issue, whether the ruling made by your Lordship is final order and therefor appealable, we humbly submit it is not a final order and the application for stay does not arise. It is simple, depending on who apply. Just like the case of Saad b. Abas, the final order was against the PP when at the close of the prosecution case, the judge acquits the accused, but it is not a final order for the defence. If prosecution had proved prima facie case, defence can answer and rebut. In our case, what your Lordship ruled against their application was just to maintain the status quo. It is not even coming close to prosecution case. Even if there is a case to answer, that is not enough to constitute a final order. What more to dismiss the application.

We have 2 cases. Saad b. Abas and DSAI v PP. I don’t want to read, but I’ll give it to your Lordship. Where any ruling made in the course of the trial is not a final order. For Saad bin Abas, holding no.1 and no.2 and DSAI case, 1999 case, holding no.3.

With regard to Kosma case, DSAI affidavit mentioned that the appeal will be nugatory if that stay is not granted. Without saying more, in what manner will it be nugatory? In Mohd Mustafa b. Kandasamy, tab 4 of our bundle it will only be nugatory if the parties is deprived of the fruit of the trial. If my learned friend succeeds, it will be the end of the trial. It will be a final order for us, but not theirs. They will not be deprived of the fruit of the trial. Their appeal will not be nugatory and they will enjoy the fruit of success.  [Refer Kosma] Stay is granted if the appeal will be render nugatory. In Mustafa b. Kandasamy, it is nugatory if they are deprived as to the result of the appeal. In our case, they will enjoy the fruit of the trial if they succeed in their appeal.

YA: This are civil cases.

MY: In criminal case, refer tab 1. In Criminal Procedure Code, it only talks about appeal against acquittal, and stay will be granted if there is something that cannot be reversed. Example will be whipping and hanging, but not necessarily in all exceptional circumstances. In Kosma, it talks about stay at the end of the trial. If civil cases do not apply, more so in this matter, it should not. Because in criminal cases, stay only apply at the end of the case. I pray for this application to be dismissed and continue with the examination of the witnesses.

KS: Question of stay has already been decided by the Federal Court decision.

YA: Federal Court decision is to continue with the case.

KS: We are not appealing against that. We are appealing on the decision of your Lordship dismissing our application to strike out the charge.

YA: As to my order just now, how would it finally disposed the right of the parties?

KS: Never mind if the Court of Appeal dismisses our appeal. If your Lordship decides on our favour, it will be the end of the matter. This is what meant by finally disposed the right of the parties.

YA: I did not decide in your favour. How does it dispose your right?

KS: If we succeed now, the trial will be nugatory.

YA: How is it?

KS: It is nugatory. Waste of public funds. The court will decide whether your Lordship decision is []

YA: In Kosma, []

KS: That is as the civil case is concern.

YA: []

KS: Assuming it applies to criminal cases with modification.

YA: So, you are saying that the principle in Kosma applies in criminal cases with modification?

KS: Yes. Nugatory in the sense that the entire event had not been embark. The charge is something will be dismissed no authority yet on this matter.

YA: That’s all? MY, anything you would like to add?

MY: No.

YA: Give me some time.

[3.28 p.m.] Stand down

[3.59 p.m.]

YA: [read desicion] Telah menjadi undang-undang mantap bahawa fakta atau rayuan bukanlah satu sebab untuk menagguh prosiding. Mesti ada kadar istimewa untuk menanguh dan nugatory adalah satu daripada contoh kadar istimewa. Sekiranya rayuan permohon dibenarkan, tuduhan akan digugurkan. [] tetapi lebih penting isu salah guna Mahkamah yang dibangkitkan [] menjejaskan intergriti perbicaraan itu sendiri. Ini adalah satu keadaan istimewa. Oleh itu, adalah lebih perlu untuk rayuan permohonan ini didengar dan diputuskan di Mahkamah Rayuan. Permohonan untuk penangguhan prosiding sementara menunggu rayuan dibenarkan. Kes disebut semula pada 20.9.2010. Tarikh dari hari ini hingga 30.08.2010 dilapangkan.

[4.05 p.m.] Application allowed.

++++++++++++ English Version +++++++++++++

Criminal High Court 3, Kuala Lumpur

Before Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

Motion to set aside charges

Parties :

PP: All present

Defence : KS, SN, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Radzlan, (Marissa, Ram Singh, Datuk Param Cumaraswam absent)

WB : Andy Yong (Bar Council), Mark Trowell (QC for the Law Asia, CLA and ICJ)

AI present

Ruling 44-176-2010

[9.14 a.m.]

YA: [read his decision]

DSAI, applicant in the original motion for the court to dismiss charges under Section 377B of the law under which he is being charged. This application is supported by applicants’ affidavit. Applicant charges that Cik Farah Azlina (FA) was privy to investigation papers, FA is having an affair with SP1, SP1 has been provided with information about contents of the investigative papers because of his relationship with FA and because of that, the integrity of the prosecution’s case against the applicant is compromised.

The Prosecution is objecting to this application and has filed 2 sworn affidavits in response, by Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria and Jude Blacious. In the affidavit, the Prosecution does not deny nor admit the affair between Cik FA and SP1 but only emphasises that Cik FA’s role in the case is mainly to record testimonies of witnesses during the trial. As such, SP1 did not have access to information contained in the investigative papers.

KS urges the court to accept that what is alleged by the applicant in his affidavit as the truth because there is no denial from any member of the Prosecution with regards to the affair between Cik FA and SP1. As there is an affair between FA and SP1, therefore there is an abuse of the court process.

PCN II has responded that the applicant’s affidavit goes against Regulation 41, Procedure 5 of High Court Procedures. What is mentioned in the affidavit is that the allegations contained in the applicant’s affidavit are based on hearsay and as such in admissible. Because of this, there is no need for the respondents to reply and as such, the application should be dismissed.

KS doesn’t deny that under Regulation 41, Procedure 5 is being used, but further claims that what is mentioned by the applicant in his affidavit fulfills requirements according to Regulation 41, Procedure 5 of High Court Procedures and is not based on hearsay.

I agree that should the motion be granted, the proceedings of the trial will be stopped and therefore remove the rights of parties concerned. As such, it is not something interlocutory, whereby an affidavit that is being used may contain statements about information or what is believed, as provided under Procedure 5(2) of Regulation 41 – Procedures of the High Court.

As this application is not interlocutory, it is subject to Regulation 41, Procedure 5(1) of the Procedures of the High Court. This means that statements filed in affidavits are limited to facts that the applicant is able to prove, based on his own knowledge.

The respondents are assumed to admit that the applicant’s claims in the affidavit are based on the applicant’s own knowledge or from records to which the applicant has access. This sets aside the requirements of Regulation 41, Procedure 5(1) of the Procedures of the High Court.

After weighing and comparing claims in the applicant’s affidavit, which are more characteristic of assumptions and what is believed by the applicant is relation to this issue, with what is precised by Jude Blacious and Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria (and) After the clarification from both of them, it is logical to arrive at a conclusion that while FA was part of the Prosecution’s team, as the Prosecution team operates on a need to know basis and since FA’s role was highly limited, therefore FA, at no point in time, had any access to investigation papers nor copies of investigation pares including what they contained therein.

FA was also not involved in any briefing or discussion concerning the strategic handling of the case. Considering that FA herself did not have access to investigation papers or documents concerned, nor did she have any knowledge with regards to the contents of the investigation papers or documents nor the prosecution’s strategy, therefore it is not possible for SP1 to have had access to the said investigation papers or have any knowledge of their contents through FA.

FA’s role was limited to recording notes from testimonies in court. She is not a Public Prosecutor who has decided to press charges against the applicant. The running and direction of the prosecution’s case is not determined by FA. She is not one of the counsels who questions witnesses. Under these circumstances, I find that any influence whatsoever that SP1 may have over FA because of their affair, would have no influence over the Prosecution team to the point that it compromises the integrity and impartiality of the Prosecution.

I find that there is no wrongful use of the court process in this case to justify or compel the court to set aside the charges as requested by the applicant. As such, the application is denied.

[9.28 a.m.] Application dismissed.

Case No. 45-9-09

Cross-examination of SP2

[9.48 a.m.]

MY: Trial for the cross-examination of SP2.

KS: Before we proceed with the trial, as lawyers we are trained to accept decision of the court but sometimes it’s quite critical that the decision should []. It is quite clear that there is inconsistency in the judgment given. We intend to go on with this matter to the Court of Appeal. We’ve filed the notice of appeal this morning. In the meanwhile, we’ve planned for a stay proceeding. In any event, we cannot make it orally. We are going to file an application and accompany by affidavit and my learned friend should reply. We need time. We will serve this. Could we adjourn to tomorrow morning for the application for stay to be heard? I cannot see how the proceeding can continue now.

MY: I’m objecting for the application of stay pending appeal. We need to proceed. We’ve postponed this case for too long. Until the application filed and heard, I think we should proceed with the trial.

KS: My learned friend is being petty. He should not here to push to prosecute. As a matter of right, the accused has the right to file an appeal and as of right he has the opportunity to file an application for stay.

YA: That’s all?

KS: For the moment, yes.

YA: I agree with MY that unless there is an application made and order for stay, the trial should.

KS: Unless with application. Your Lordship has said that.

YA: As far as I’m concern, there is no application file before me yet. That’s my order. I’ve made my order. Proceed. MY, where is your witness?

KS: Your Lordship can’t make an order that is frivolous.

YA: Call the next witness.

KS: This is unfair. We can’t just sit here and allow injustice done. I will not be intimidated.

YA: Be careful with your words.

KS: We would like a short break before we proceed.

MY: When in lower court, [] we should proceed

KS: We will proceed, but we need to take a break for the defence discuss with our strategy.

YA: I take your word that you need ½ hour. You can have your own strategy.

KS: Yes. Subject to that strategy. We’ve the right. You cannot deny the right. Your Lordship should not []

YA: After ½ hour break, we’ll proceed to cross-examination SP2.

KS: Depends on what we have to say. Condition should not be attached. Subject to our strategy and what we have to say.

YA: So you said you are not going to cross-examination him?

KS: Subject to strategy. I take instruction from my client. Your Lordship can’t deny that.

YA: ½ hour and then we’ll proceed with cross-examination.

[9.57 a.m.] Stand down

[10.51 a.m.]

KS: [] my learned friend has considered the order made by your Lordship.

YA: I think you misheard my judgment. It is under Regulation 41.

KS: It is for striking out the charge. It must be a final order and under such circumstances the charge should be struck out. Your Lordship said unless there is an application for stay. We did not contemplate what is your Lordship decision and therefore no application for stay is made. There is no such thing as oral application for stay of proceeding.

I refer to case of Kosma, last para [read] The application must be file by way of an affidavit and how can we file it unless we have the time. We were given time before. This is precedent set by your Lordship yourself. And MY ought not to try to persuade your Lordship not to do that. Your Lordship is bound by the decision of the Federal Court. Why unholy haste? We are not delaying the proceeding. We ask what we are entitled as of right. We don’t beg because this is our right. I believe in demanding. In fact, we are demanding what DSAI is entitled to. We need time to file the application for stay. We need until afternoon. We can even continue after five.

YA: So I take it you want to file it this afternoon?

KS: Yes. We can proceed with the trial perhaps till evening and night.

YA:  KS is not fasting.

KS: This is as of right. You cannot deny the right. This is a matter of discretion and in the spirit of Ramadan; you cannot go against the application I’ve made. Your Lordship is bound by the authority. Any real prosecutor will agree with our argument.

YA: I’ve to hear MY.

KS: Yes. You can hear but should not unnecessarily influenced by him. He is the SGII. He must be fair and ensure a fair trial. More so, your Lordship. Give us what is due to us. We’ll come back in the afternoon. I will file it within an hour.

YA: Is that all?

KS: Yes. Let justice prevail.

YA: MY?

MY: I don’t know what to say. Justice is said too many times. For once, I agree with my learned friend that we must do justice. To apply for a stay is not a right. It is a gray area. What your Lordship ruled [] The word decision under Section 3 Criminal Procedure Code and [] does not amount to stay. I’m objecting in principle.

my learned friend has given undertaking []

YA: 2.15 p.m.?

KS: It could be a little more than that.

YA: But please. 2.15 p.m. is 2.15p.m., not 2.30 p.m. Just now you said you need ½ hour to file the application, but you took more than that.

KS: We were outside waiting for your Lordship.

KS: You were not here. I was about to come up but you were not here. So now you want to blame the court?

MY: We’ve the authority ready for the last time.

YA: Just nice. Now is 11. So, you have more than 1 hour to file. In fact, you have 2 hours to file it. 2.15 p.m. we’ll assemble again.

[11.01 a.m.] Stand down

[3.08 p.m.]

Application 44-186-2010

KS: The notice of appeal against your Lordship ruling has been and following that application, the application for stay has been filed in the Court of Appeal. The ground of appeal is founded and supported by the affidavit of DSAI which had been filed just now. At this point, your Lordship should consider whether no.1 the ruling made by your Lordship is a final order. I refer to Section 3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964. [read Section 3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964] we say here that the ruling made are one which would finally dispose the right of the parties. If the charge is struck out, that is the end of the matter. It finally disposed the right of the parties.

The 2nd requirement is whether the position would be nugatory if your Lordship continues with the trial. I refer to the case of Kosma. [Refer Para 1 of case and read nugatory part]. We say the matter will become nugatory if your Lordship continue with the trial and the Court of Appeal decides the charge to be stuck out and that will be special circumstances – nugatoriness. Under these special circumstances, we apply for the application be allowed. As simple as that.

MY: With regard of the 1st issue, whether the ruling made by your Lordship is final order and therefore appealable, we humbly submit it is not a final order and the application for stay does not arise. It is simple, depending on who apply. Just like the case of Saad b. Abas, the final order was against the PP when at the close of the prosecution case, the judge acquits the accused, but it is not a final order for the defence. If prosecution had proved prima facie case, defence can answer and rebut. In our case, what your Lordship ruled against their application was just to maintain the status quo. It is not even coming close to prosecution case. Even if there is a case to answer, that is not enough to constitute a final order. What more to dismiss the application.

We have 2 cases. Saad b. Abas and DSAI v PP. I don’t want to read, but I’ll give it to your Lordship. Where any ruling made in the course of the trial is not a final order. For Saad bin Abas, holding no.1 and no.2 and DSAI case, 1999 case, holding no.3.

With regard to Kosma case, DSAI affidavit mentioned that the appeal will be nugatory if that stay is not granted. Without saying more, in what manner will it be nugatory? In Mohd Mustafa b. Kandasamy, tab 4 of our bundle it will only be nugatory if the parties is deprived of the fruit of the trial. If my learned friend succeeds, it will be the end of the trial. It will be a final order for us, but not theirs. They will not be deprived of the fruit of the trial. Their appeal will not be nugatory and they will enjoy the fruit of success. [Refer Kosma] Stay is granted if the appeal will be render nugatory. In Mustafa b. Kandasamy, it is nugatory if they are deprived as to the result of the appeal. In our case, they will enjoy the fruit of the trial if they succeed in their appeal.

YA: These are civil cases.

MY: In criminal case, refer tab 1. In Criminal Procedure Code, it only talks about appeal against acquittal, and stay will be granted if there is something that cannot be reversed. Example will be whipping and hanging, but not necessarily in all exceptional circumstances. In Kosma, it talks about stay at the end of the trial. If civil cases do not apply, more so in this matter, it should not. Because in criminal cases, stay only apply at the end of the case. I pray for this application to be dismissed and continue with the examination of the witnesses.

KS: Question of stay has already been decided by the Federal Court decision.

YA: Federal Court decision is to continue with the case.

KS: We are not appealing against that. We are appealing on the decision of your Lordship dismissing our application to strike out the charge.

YA: As to my order just now, how would it finally disposed the right of the parties?

KS: Never mind if the Court of Appeal dismisses our appeal. If your Lordship decides in our favour, it will be the end of the matter. This is what meant by finally disposed the right of the parties.

YA: I did not decide in your favour. How does it dispose your right?

KS: If we succeed now, the trial will be nugatory.

YA: How is it?

KS: It is nugatory. Waste of public funds. The court will decide whether your Lordship decision is []

YA: In Kosma, []

KS: That is as the civil case is concern.

YA: []

KS: Assuming it applies to criminal cases with modification.

YA: So, you are saying that the principle in Kosma applies in criminal cases with modification?

KS: Yes. Nugatory in the sense that the entire event had not been embark. The charge is something will be dismissed no authority yet on this matter.

YA: That’s all? MY, anything you would like to add?

MY: No.

YA: Give me some time.

[3.28 p.m.] Stand down

[3.59 p.m.]

YA: [read desicion]

It is the law that facts or appeals are not reasons to stay proceedings. There must be special proportions for stay of proceedings, and nugatory is one of these special proportions. If the applicants’ appeal is upheld, charges will be dismissed. What is more important is the issue of the misuse of the court which has been brought up, which affects the integrity of the trial itself. This is a special situation. As such, it is more of a necessity for applicant’s appeal to be heard by the Court of Appeals. Application to stay proceedings while awaiting the decision of the appeal is granted. This case will resume on 20 Sept 2010. Dates from today until 30 August 2010 are freed.

[4.05 p.m.] Application allowed.

Comments»

1. Hoih - August 17, 2010

Let justice prevail hoih!

2. arms - August 17, 2010

Salam ramadan

Biarlah berhadapan dengan pengadilan…jangan dok tangguh2…ni bulan ramadan dah sah ABI tu takut, so dia berbelit-belit.

Bosan-bosan dan bosan…ni Parti Keadilan..keadilan cara ABI

Rakyat nak tahu kebenaran..harap mahkamah teruskan pengadilan dengan segera..

3. Orang Kampung - August 17, 2010

Why don’t the judge just allow them to question Saiful and Farah but limit the questions to the information leak to avoid all these fuss! Let Justice prevail.

4. People's Law - August 17, 2010

If the judge let everyone have what they want in court then there will be no end to every case lah STUPID!

5. People's Power - August 18, 2010

Its better being stupid than punishing the innocent!


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: