jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 17 September 2010 September 17, 2010

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Malaysian Story, Pakatan Rakyat, Sodomy II, Transformation in PKR.
Tags: , ,

Di Dalam Mahkamah Rayuan
Di hadapan : Y.A. Dato’ Ahmad bin Haji Maarop, HMR
Y.A. Dato’ Sulaiman bin Daud, HMR
Y.A. Dato’ Azhar bin Haji Maah, HMR

PP    : Semua hadir
PB    : Datuk Param Cumaswaram, KS, SN

Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam permohonan mengenepikan pertuduhan

[9.45 a.m.]
YA: The appellant is here?
KS: Yes.
KS memohon untuk berhujah dalam Bahasa Inggeris
KS: This is an appeal against the decision by Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah in the High Court on the application to strike out the charge. I take you to the translation of the appeal.
YA: Is there any preliminary issue?
MY: I thought KS will address the issue first on whether it is appealable or not.
KS: We accept it as a final order. In fact the Lordship in High Court accepts it as a final order.
MY: I believe YA in the High Court did not make any ruling on that.
YA: I raise this because in the skeletal submission of the respondent the issue was raised.
KS: We did not anticipate my learned friend to submit on this. We did not receive any notice on this.
MY: The only reason we did not give any notice is that in the lower court in fact in the High Court, on the application for stay this is the thing that the court has to consider, whether the matter is appealable or not. We have raised this point consistently in the High Court. So there is no point to give notice.
YA: So, are you ready to submit on this point?
MY: Yes.
YA: It’s only a short point, I guess.
KS: Short point, but crucial to us my Lord. It will be difficult for us because we have to argue based on merits. [] I was under the impression that the matter is considered less. It can be found in my learned friend skeletal submission in the High Court.
YA: What pages are you referring to?
KS: I refer to my learned friend skeletal submission in the High Court. Here, in the bundle.
MY: Page 33 of the appeal record. Paragraph 20.
KS: [read para 20].  It was certainly is a final order. []
YA: So you are not making any submission on the issue?
KS: I will. In fact it is in my learned friend skeletal submission. Unfortunately my learned friend did not give notice, but we don’t mind to go into the matter. Unless my learned friend wants to stick with the preliminary issue.
YA: So we can proceed on the issue?
KS: []
YA: We proceed on the preliminary issue first, and then we’ll proceed with the merit of the application.
KS: We can’t []
MY: May I refer to para 20. It only refers to the nature of the application, not the order.
YA: What you are saying is it may be interlocutory order, but not a final order?
MY: Yes. The nature of the application is only a final order. It cannot contain hearsay. It is pertinent for us to know the nature of the application and then to decide whether the application is a final order or interlocutory. If it is not interlocutory, the facts deposed by the deponent must be based on his personal knowledge. [] The order is a different thing. If the order is against us, the order is final for us, but not to them. If it not against us, it is not final for us, but to them.
YA: Before we go the merits, let’s hear the preliminary objection first. So are you taking up this point?
MY: Yes. Because it is not appealable, then the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
YA: In fact this point is a short one. KS has submit it in various cases even in the Federal Court and you have argue this point outside.
KS: Outside is the other thing. In fact, when we submit this issue on the application of 112 statement of SP1, it is different. Why if there is anything against them, they can appeal, but when it is against us we cannot appeal?
YA: []
KS: [] My learned friend should serve the notice on preliminary objection earlier. We are seeking time until Monday. We should not rush things.
YA: What if we give you time until 3.00 p.m. today.
KS: We need time to look into it. This is an important matter. The prosecution is an abuse process of the court. The case should be thrown out.
YA: MY, what’s your opinion?
MY: I agree with your Lordship for the matter to be heard in the afternoon. The case itself is [] The authorities we are using are still the same and also Section 3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964. I don’t think it would be a problem for us to continue this afternoon. [] in fact Ks can refer to [].
KS: There is one reserved judgment by the Federal Court in the appeal on 112 statement.
YA: We’ll stand down the matter for a while.
[10.15 a.m.] Stand down
[10.28 a.m.]
YA: So, position is still the same?
MY:     Yes.
YA: Monday is on the 20th September 2010. So, we’ll take it up at 9.00 a.m. because there is other cases.
[10.32 a.m.] Appeal adjourned.



1. Anonymous - October 30, 2010


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: