jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 27 Oktober 2010 October 28, 2010

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

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

Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

[9. 17 a.m.]
MY: Pihak-pihak masih sama seperti semalam. Kecuali Encik Karpal. Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung pemeriksaan balas SP2
SN: I have been informed by Karpal’s family that fortunately the test for dengue is negative. However because of his diarrhea he suffered, he require some time for recovery. He request he could come back at 2.pm. Meanwhile we require some time to prepare in the event karpal could not make it this afternoon. We will continue at 2.pm. Could we have the matter stood down at 2 p.m.? We would be obliged.
MY: I sincerely hope whether it is Encik Karpal or somebody else for the cross-examination to be carried on this afternoon.
YA: In the event Karpal could not make it this afternoon, kita akan mula cross-examination at 2 p.m.
SN: We will. We will also confirmed with each other who is to take the cross examination in the afternoon.
[9.22 a.m.] Stand down

[2.08 p.m.]
MY: Pihak masih sama. Kes untuk sambung pemeriksaan balas SP2, Dr. Razali bin Ibrahim.

SP2 mengangkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q: You remember giving evidence on Monday?
A: Yes.

Q: Let me refresh your memory. You said in cross-examination, a report was prepared on 28th June 2008. Initial report. Is it correct? Was there a report prepared on 28th June?
A: Prepared on 29th. 28th is the examination of the victim.

Q: Is it correct on Monday you said it was done on 28th and not 29th?
A: It’s made on 29th June 2008.

Q: That’s a lie.
A: I make mistake.

Q: So make mistake with regard with the date?
A: Yes. I forgot the date.

Q: You said further, that on 28th June there’s there was a separate report. I take it from what you have told the court.
A: Yes. I understood. Actually the exact date was on 29th. The report was carried out subsequent to the examination because on 28th June I did examination on the patient.

Q: So there were notes made?
A: Yes.

Q: Notes on 28th? Made contemporaneous with the examination?
A: It was reduced and summarized on 29th.

Q: Dated 29th June?
A: It was initiated on 29th June.

Q: On 29th, it was not dated?
A: It was in the process.

Q: Process of being prepared?
A: Yes.

Q: It was prepared on 29th?
A: Yes.

Q: By when was it ready?
A: 10th July.

Q: It could be dated as 10th of July?
A: It is the date the report should come out.

Q: When was the report reduced into writing?
A: 10th July.

Q: Who dated it?
A: I can’t remember who dated it.

Q: But it was dated?
A: Yes.

Q: Signed by three of you?
A: Yes.

Q: P22, dated 13th of July. All three of you signed it? And specifically dated and signed?
A: Yes.

Q: The one on 10th July likewise,  should be signed just like P22. P22 was signed by three of you. It is a requirement to sign every page?
A: Any report that is going to be issued out must be signed on every page.

Q: The purpose of signing every page is to ensure there’s no inclusion. Do you agree?
A: Yes.

Q: P22 was signed on every page?
A: That’s the formal report. So, yes.

Q: Any formal report must be signed every page. Do you agree?
A: Any report we want to issue must be signed on every page.

Q: The report on 10th july is signed?
A: We signed with intention to come out with the report, but we have a laboratory result that will help us [].

Q: The report was done, signed by 3 of you, but not issued?
A:    Yes.

Q: Each page was signed but not issued?
A: I can’t remember whether I signed it on every page, but I did sign it.

Q: Normally you sign it?
A: I usually signed on the report where it has my name, but not on every page.

Q: P22 was not signed by you?
A: P22 was signed at all pages. Because I have my colleagues to signed all pages for medico-legal case.

Q: But you made an exception to the report you made on 10th July.
YA: To be fair to the witness, he said he cannot remember. He said he sign it, but can’t remember whether it is on every page.

Q: Was there an exception?
A: That is something I learn from this case. Before this I only sign at the end of the report.

Q: On 28th June, the examination of Saiful (SP1) is for 3 hours?
A: Yes. From 9.00 pm to 12.00 a.m.

Q: It is a long time. Throughout the examination, is this ASP Jude present?
A: Yes.

Q: Did he brief all of you?
A: The moment the three of us entered the room we were briefed.

Q: And dealing with the complainant with high profile individual? Well known public figure?
A: Yes.

Q: That’s why the three of you examine SP1.
A: I was told by my medical officer that he cannot handle the case so he called me. As a surgeon and medical officer on duty I attend it.

Q: It involved a well-known public figure. So it was not an ordinary case?
A: Yes.

Q: Notes were in fact made and recorded on 28th June?
A: Yes.

Q: Notes available?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you produce the notes?
A: It belongs to the hospital.

YA: Sekarang kerja di mana?
SP2: HUKM

Q: But would it be available if required?
A: Should be made available.

KS: YA, we want those notes to be made available.
MY: The law is very clear. [read S.157 EA].
KS: It’s not as simple as that.
MY: I can ask KS to read that.
KS: I’ve read all of my life.
YA: If the witness wants to refer it, then it should be made available.
KS: This is cross-examination.
YA: So, what do you want? You want the notes taken during the three hours? Let’s hear your submission.
KS: I want the notes made during the three hours to be made available. We need all this notes and a lot of things happened in HKL. Just like the case of black eye incident. Dr. Rahman. We don’t want the reputation of that yet. The notes are in existence and are available. In fact your Lordship can direct it to be made available, subject to admissibility and relevancy. They are relevant. There can be no doubt any notes taken in the course of examination, in the first instance is relevant. What is subsequently reduced in the report is something different. This is notes taken at the first opportunity and that would reflect the truth more than anything else. I keep repeating it. A lot of things happened like the black eye case, where the doctor was asked to do certain things. Dr. RahmanYusof.  Where he said that the wound on DSAI’s eyes was self inflicted but that’s another matter. What I said is a lot of things happened before. Like in the case.

These notes are admissible for the purpose of consistency, and to certain extent of corroboration. It could be diametrically the ultimate purpose to be recorded. The report may be different from the other report. I take your Lordship.to the case of Pannerselvam v PP (1991) 1 MLJ [read Headnotes] Of course it is reverse here, but your Lordship can apply it. [read] One relevancy, and two admissibility. [continue reading] Just like your Lordship directed that the report yesterday being produced. Likewise should be applied to the report today. We are under; or rather the witness is under the cross-exam. Leading question can be asked in cross-examination. The latitude is very wide unlike examination-in-chief. Truth can only be elicited true cross-examination. My learned friend has the statement with him.  YA should direct the witness to produce the notes and we want the notes to be examined by our witness, Dr. Wells. Or else anybody can come here and produce the report.  The court can must go beyond the surface, beyond the way. Forget about Section 159 and 160 EA.

MY: I’ve referred to S.161 EA which refer to S.159 and S.160 [read S.16 and S.159] So, any writing as in S.159, must be produced if any is referred to during EIC, not during cross-examination. Then only Pannerselvam is relevant. When we talk about corroboration [] eg, the notes made contemporaneously [].

I’ve this bundle of submission when KS make an application to have the notes of the doctors. I refer to the case Saw Thean Teik [read the case]. My learned friend cannot force the prosecution to produce the something to be corroborative during cross-examination when we didn’t want to do so or don’t want to produce it. I refer to Balachandran and Sarkar Law [read]. This is the Indian position, just if my learned friend thinks the court in Malaysia did not know what they are talking about. You can only inspect if the witness refreshes his memory. Forget about admissibility and what not. What is admissible is only what he said.  In this court, the trial was governed by the CPC and EA. Court is observing S.59 and S.60 of EA [read]. Here is a person who is being examined and he submit his oral evidence. My learned friend has not shown any basis legally for him the right to be supplied of the notes and not even the right to inspect which is the basic. I’m not living in the past. 10 years ago was happened. This is different. Now is now. Enough political speech in this court. At this point in time, KS has not shown any basis for the court to supply the notes or even to inspect it. In fact, Pannerselvam did not support this.

KS: What happened 10 years ago should not be forgotten. It happened in HKL. We can’t forget the past.
MY: []
KS: Was the IGP imprisoned?
MY: I was in the inquiry.
KS: I was also in the inquiry. We refer to the case of DSAI, in relation to discovery in S.51. Pre-trial discovery.
YA: Don’t refer to it. It is a bad law. Don’t rely on it.
KS: I take your Lordship to the case of DSAI, Federal Court decision; it had not said it was a bad law. It was taken up at the wrong time. This is the right time. I refer to the case of DSAI [2010] 2 MLJ, page 312. I take your Lordship to para 43, page 329 [read]. In the context of principle laid down in Raymond Chia [read]. This is made in the course of the trial. The Federal Court was saying that in the course of the trial there can be discovery. Discovery of documents which are relevant and admissible. And therefore this is what we are doing now. We are not fishing for evidence. It is evidence which has been elicited throughout the cross-examination from this witness. He said there are notes can be made available, taken down for 3 hours and not 3 minutes. Why is the prosecution so afraid of this notes becoming available to this court. YA is here to ensure the truth prevails. The prosecutor should prosecute and not to [] but honestly this court must ensure that it is done. YA is a referee here, must take a stand which has been attached, must not be [] but the law as the law is there. The Federal Court has said it. In the course of trial, yes. Pre-trial, no. That’s why your Lordship what the Federal Court has said is in accordance with common sense and natural justice.  Everything must be laid down in this court without any attempt to hide the truth.
I refer s.145 EA. The latitude gives for the defence in cross-examination as given under S.145 [read]. We can’t do that unless we have those notes. What is in those notes taken for a period of 3 hours is material to impeach this witness. It is not as simple what my learned friend made it to be. []. YA should take time to consider this matter.
MY: May I reply since my learned friend submit in installment, I’ve to reply by installment. That case that my learned friend cited just now is not relevant with what we have today, because only 3 weeks ago the Federal Court has decided that the application by the defence for the notes of exhibit where Dr. Wells filed the affidavit, it decided that they are not entitled to it. And it was made in the course of the trial, of course. Because whatever the Federal Court wants to say, the Federal Court cannot rewrite the law. Either it gave effect to it or interpret it and pursue it at the manner it was admissible. It’s ambiguous but here is very clear. The Federal Court has decided not to rewrite the law. So the law remains as it is. S.159, and S.161. Until and unless my learned friend can now show basis to the court either because the witness has referred to any notes during the EIC, or suddenly KS has a hunch which then has to satisfy the requirement said out in Mokhtar Hashim’s case, then it is my humble opinion in my submission, my Lord at the defence is not entitled to it. Question of being afraid does not arise.
KS: My learned friend refers to the Federal Court case. [] but all the time any appeal by us is not a final order. []. There has been no ruling by the Federal Court. There is no such a ruling. Easy way out. Not a final order. It is supported by my learned friend that there will be nothing by the Federal Court []
MY: Then the High Court ruling stands.
KS: [] The Federal Court has done nothing. Federal Court has no ruling under the law. []
YA: Ini kalau besides benda-benda ini, any other aspect cross-examination you can proceed. As you said I need time to come out with the ruling. For the time being, to save time can we proceed with other question on other aspect?
KS: This is very important. The notes.
YA: I know it’s important but I’m sure you have some other aspect that is equally important. We can proceed to save time.
KS: Everything depends on your Lordship’s ruling. []
YA: That means you don’t have anything else beside this?
KS: There will be but nothing at this moment. The evidence is on the report.
YA: So, you mean to say that you cannot proceed without my ruling?
KS: Effectively proceed after that after your ruling.
YA: Stand down for a while. I’ll try make my ruling by this afternoon.
[2.54 p.m.] Stand down

[3.17 p.m.]
YA: I agree normally the defence is not entitled to inspect a contemporaneous notes. It is not a medical report. However in this case we are not dealing with contemporaneous notes taken out as medical report. That’s what the application is about. Therefore in the interest of justice I’m allowing the defence application for this report to be supplied and inspected.
MY: It’s the contemporaneous notes, not the report. The report has no problem.
YA: You are talking about that report?
MY: Yes. Yesterday I’ve given them the copy of the report. They are asking about the notes.
YA: So, they are asking for the notes?
KS: We are asking for the notes taken by the three doctors for 3 hours examination. The notes, unlike the report. The notes is recorded, YA.
MY: The reports was based on the notes.
CV: The written notes, YA.
YA: You mean the contemporaneous notes they took during the examination, not the one they wrote and signed?
KS: We haven’t come to that yet.
MY: Yesterday, we stood down for the medical report of HKL. But now KS is not asking for that, but the contemporaneous notes.
KS: I’ve not come to that yet.
YA: I don’t know but I understand from your submission on Tuesday, he takes down the note, he prepare it, the one dated 10th, he signed it, the 10th.Subsequently, [] I was under the impression you were asking for the report on the 10th. The report on the 10th
KS: No. The notes contemporaneously taken during the examination. We are asking for the originally notes recoded for the three hour examination done on SP1, in writing of course.
YA: That’s mean my ruling is the same. [read the ruling] If you want, my ruling still stands. But from that notes he reduced it into report on the 10th, I allow it. So if you want you can have it. But for the contemporaneous notes my ruling stand.
KS: Can we have a short break? Need to discuss with my team.
YA: For how long?
KS: 20 minutes.
YA: Stand down.
[3.24 p.m.] Stand down.

[3.38 p.m.]
MY: Saksi ke bilik air, YA.
YA: Never mind, we wait. Usually they wait for us.

KS: YA, we take it our application is declined. However, []
YA: The report that was reduced into writing, the one they signed but did not produced it. The report dated 10th July 2008.

Q: Is there such report dated 10th july 2008?
A: It was a prepared report that planned to be issued, but is never been issued because we have a laboratory result before that. So called, the report dated 10th of July are supposed to come out, but didn’t been issued. And then the formal report was done and it is formally come out together with the laboratory report.

Q: Is there a report dated 10th July?
A: A preliminary report.

Q: Is there’s a doctor signed on 10th of July? Doesn’t matter if preliminary or otherwise.
A: Yes.

Q: Signed by the three of you?
A: Yes.

Q: You saw the date before you signed it?
A: Yes.

Q: All the report ought to be signed and dated?
A: Yes.

Q: Dated 10th July?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you look at it?
A: [witness give the document to the defence counsel]

Q: You said you signed it on the 10th?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you show the date?
A: [show page one]

Q: Date is on the last page, isn’t it? Always on the last page.
A: on the 2nd page of the report dated 10th July.

Q: Is there such a date on the last page?
A: Not on the signatory part.

Q: Is there such word “dated 10th July 2008” on the last page?
A:    It’s dated on the 2nd page.

Q: Is there the word “dated 10th of July”?
A: No.

Q: Is it stated anywhere “dated 10th of July”?
A: No.

Q: Those words are not there.
A: Yes.

Q: Therefore it is not dated.
A: Yes.

KS: We’ve to take instruction from DSAI regarding this document.
YA: You want it to be marked?
KS: Not for the moment, YA.

Q: Look at P22. P22 is the production of what happened from 28th June to 13th July?
A: We summarized the event.

Q: Is P22 the main result of what happened on 28th June?
A: Yes.
Q: Is P22 part of what happened on 28th?
A: Not part of it. What happened on it.

Q: Part of it is much more than this, isn’t it?
A: It is what happened .

Q: Much more detailed than this?
A: It is summarized.

Q: Do you wish to refer your notes? Easy for us, for all of us.
A: No.

Q: It presents the report, what actually transpire. It’s a summary, not a complete report. The word summary means incomplete.
A: Summary means summarized, sum up of everything what we collected [] and put in specific details. It is regarded as complete []

Q: Is it a summary or otherwise? Is it complete?
A: The word is different. It’s something we compile, but not otherwise.

YA: Leave it to submission.
KS: I need to know what exactly he meant by the word summary. We can’t take whatever mumbo jumbo he says.
YA: As far as I’m concern, he meant that the summary and complete report are the same thing.

Q: During this 3 hours, the examination only for 3 hours?
A: Not only examination, include history.

Q: History on P22, two lines, so incomplete. Because there’s much more on it.
A: I said summary is the sum up of the whole story. There’s so much of story the patient will tell us. Story from the patient is the same as from the history. []

Q: So it was recorded?
A: Yes. It was for us to bring out the important and summarized it to give us clear picture on what we are working on.

Q: So the two liner is the history of it?
A: [does not have chance to answer]

Q: How long does you take to take the history of the patient?
A: I’m not involved, but Dr. Siew and Dr. Khairul.

Q: How long did he take?
A: I can’t remember that.

Q: Is bowel history is taken?
A: I was not involved in taking the history at all. I’m not involved in directly clerking the history.

Q: Were you aware or did SP1 tell the three of you that he sees other doctor?
A: it was summarized when we enter the room. We were informed.

Q: Whom did he see earlier?
A: A doctor in a private hospital, Pusrawi.

Q: Did you find out exactly what actually transpired in Pusrawi?
A: No.

Q: Was there any attempt taken to know what happened at Pusrawi?
A: Yes.

Q: By whom?
A: I don’t remember. But I remember it was done in Pusrawi.

Q: That he was examined by Dr. Osman?
A: The doctor I don’t remember, but only the hospital.

Q: That was not recorded here, P22 or anywhere here?
A: []

Q: Do you need to refresh your memory?

YA: Kalau kita tak ingat apa yang kita buat, kita boleh rujuk nota. Tapi kena tunjuk pada pihak lawan.
KS: We can’t force you but we can persuade you very gently

Q: You said it was recorded just now.
A: I wasn’t aware. Anything that has been examined should have been recorded.

Q: It was important so it was recorded.
A: Yes.

Q: All three of you have gone through the history therefore you came up with the ultimate report, P22  isn’t it?
A: I can’t remember.

KS: That’s why you must refer to the notes. No problem.
A: I was made aware that the report was recorded.

Q: You must be responsible as the other two. For the report. Because you have gone to the history. With regard to what he had told you on what happened at Pusrawi.
A: Yes. But P22.

Q: Are you in a position to recollect of what was done on SP1. What was said by SP1 with regard as to how and what happened in Pusrawi .
A: He didn’t tell me exactly.

Q: That’s why you need to refer to the notes. The notes will reveal it, won’t it?
A: I’m not sure.

Q: Why can’t you refer?
A: Because I’m not involved directly in the taking of the history.

MY: May I say something? The whole idea of refreshing the memory is to what he did.
KS: My learned friend should not interrupt me. The sequence is lost.
YA: I’m going to hear him.
MY: He’s asked on what he did. Just like in Pannerselvam. He prepared the notes. Here, the witness said since Monday that he was not the one prepared the history note.
YA: I would assume they collectively in making the examination he is aware.
MY: He did not take the history. It is not something he noted.
YA: For the time being I’m going to allow, but I’m going to make a ruling on the DPP’s objection.

Q: You signed as one of the three doctors in P22.
A: Yes.

Q: You jointly did the report. So you jointly are responsible for the report?
A: Yes. On the part of what I did.

Q: Not part, but jointly. Namely what had happened in Pusrawi. But you cannot remember.
A: I was made aware.

Q: But this is the joint report, and you can’t remember it now.
A: I can’t remember the details. But he was examined by a private hospital doctor.

KS: So to recollect your memory, you have to refer to the notes?
MY: May I know what is the detail he wants to know?
KS: If my learned friend wants to go into the witness box, he does not need to give a     lecture on law.
YA: He cannot remember the details. Ask specific one.

Q: To be able to remember what transpires at Pusrawi, you must to refer to  the notes.
A: LGive me some time to try to remember. I don’t need to refer to the notes.

Q: So you don’t want to refer the notes?
A: No.

Q: P22, last page. Under “summary concluded” [read]. Do you know the meaning conclusive?
A: Yes.

Q: What’s does that mean?
A: Meaning very sure.

Q: What is the meaning of clinical?
A: The assessment done by doctors.

Q: Clinical means [read dictionary]
A: Assessment done by doctors.

KS: That’s not the meaning of clinical.
MY: He has answer. You cannot be looking at the dictionary. He prepared the report and this is what he understands.

Q: What is the meaning of clinical?
A: Assessment done by doctors.

Q: Objective assessment?
A: Anything must be done objectively.

Q: P22, what was the Chemist Report available at the time to the three of you. How many were available? How many that are available on 13th July?
A: One full chemist report.

Q: One chemist report?
A: Yes.

Q: Who’s report?
A: I can’t remember the names.

Q: Do you want to refer the notes?
A: No need.

MY: The notes is not the Chemist Report.
YA: []
KS: Chemist must have a name.
YA: If he don’t remember, he must refer to the notes.
SP2: Can I check the lab report?

Q: In P22, there was only one chemist report referred to you?
A: Yes. Only one report gives to us.

Q: []
A: I don’t get what you mean. Only one report was given to us.

Q: What is the number of the report?
A: [witness ask permission from court to refer P22]

Q: You cannot remember the Chemist Report?
A: No.

Q: You remember the details of P22?
A: Yes.

Q: How many Chemist Report are there in P22?
A: It is here. [read].

Q: So, there were two reports?
A: I’m sorry. I make a mistake. A lot of pressure. I saw it as one.

Q: What do you mean?
A: The whole thing is just one, nothing extra after that.

Q: I cannot understand.
A: They can give us more than one but it is stacked as one, so I regard it as one. It comes in more than one stack, but we consider it as one.

KS: Can we stop now? We must stop now.
YA: Can’t you finish with him?
KS: We need to take instruction from DSAI.
MY: I’ve made available the report on the 10th July.
YA: Can we start tomorrow, DPP?
KS: Day after tomorrow perhaps? The Indian PM is coming and there’s a lunch I’m invited to. All of us.
MY: We can still start tomorrow.
YA: This is more important. We’ve start at 8.30 a.m.
KS: I don’t mind as long as we can stop at 10.30. Because the lunch is at 11.
YA: If you want to stop early tomorrow. Whatever time we have now we use it.
MY: We can stop at 5.
KS: We start tomorrow morning. I forgo the lunch.
YA: Tomorrow 8.30 a.m.

“+++++++++” The Full English Version “+++++++++++”

Criminal High Court 3 KL

Before Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

[9. 17 a.m.]

MY: All parties as yesterday. With the exception of Mr Karpal Singh. Case for continuance of cross-examination of SP2.

SN: I have been informed by Karpal’s family that fortunately the test for dengue is negative. However because of his diarrhea he suffered, he require some time for recovery. He request he could come back at 2.pm. Meanwhile we require some time to prepare in the event Karpal could not make it this afternoon. We will continue at 2.pm. Could we have the matter stood down at 2 p.m.? We would be obliged.

MY: I sincerely hope whether it is Encik Karpal or somebody else for the cross-examination to be carried on this afternoon.

YA: In the event Karpal could not make it this afternoon, we will commence cross-examination at 2 p.m.

SN: We will. We will also confirmed with each other who is to take the cross examination in the afternoon.

[9.22 a.m.] Stand down

[2.08 p.m.]

MY: Parties as previously. Case for continuance of cross-examination of SP2, Dr. Razali bin Ibrahim.

SP2 Takes oath in English.

Q: You remember giving evidence on Monday?

A: Yes.

Q: Let me refresh your memory. You said in cross-examination, a report was prepared on 28th June 2008. Initial report. Is it correct? Was there a report prepared on 28th June?

A: Prepared on 29th. 28th is the examination of the victim.

Q: Is it correct on Monday you said it was done on 28th and not 29th?

A: It’s made on 29th June 2008.

Q: That’s a lie.

A: I make mistake.

Q: So make mistake with regard with the date?

A: Yes. I forgot the date.

Q: You said further, that on 28th June there’s there was a separate report. I take it from what you have told the court.

A: Yes. I understood. Actually the exact date was on 29th. The report was carried out subsequent to the examination because on 28th June I did examination on the patient.

Q: So there were notes made?

A: Yes.

Q: Notes on 28th? Made contemporaneous with the examination?

A: It was reduced and summarized on 29th.

Q: Dated 29th June?

A: It was initiated on 29th June.

Q: On 29th, it was not dated?

A: It was in the process.

Q: Process of being prepared?

A: Yes.

Q: It was prepared on 29th?

A: Yes.

Q: By when was it ready?

A: 10th July.

Q: It could be dated as 10th of July?

A: It is the date the report should come out.

Q: When was the report reduced into writing?

A: 10th July.

Q: Who dated it?

A: I can’t remember who dated it.

Q: But it was dated?

A: Yes.

Q: Signed by three of you?

A: Yes.

Q: P22, dated 13th of July. All three of you signed it? And specifically dated and signed?

A: Yes.

Q: The one on 10th July likewise, should be signed just like P22. P22 was signed by three of you. It is a requirement to sign every page?

A: Any report that is going to be issued out must be signed on every page.

Q: The purpose of signing every page is to ensure there’s no inclusion. Do you agree?

A: Yes.

Q: P22 was signed on every page?

A: That’s the formal report. So, yes.

Q: Any formal report must be signed every page. Do you agree?

A: Any report we want to issue must be signed on every page.

Q: The report on 10th july is signed?

A: We signed with intention to come out with the report, but we have a laboratory result that will help us [].

Q: The report was done, signed by 3 of u, but not issued?

A: Yes.

Q: Each page was signed but not issued?

A: I can’t remember whether I signed it on every page, but I did sign it.

Q: Normally you sign it?

A: I usually signed on the report where it has my name, but not on every page.

Q: P22 was not signed by you?

A: P22 was signed at all pages. Because I have my colleagues to signed all pages for medico-legal case.

Q: But you made an exception to the report you made on 10th July.

YA: To be fair to the witness, he said he cannot remember. He said he sign it, but can’t remember whether it is on every page.

Q: Was there an exception?

A: That is something I learn from this case. Before this I only sign at the end of the report.

Q: On 28th June, the examination of Saiful (SP1) is for 3 hours?

A: Yes. From 9.00 pm to 12.00 a.m.

Q: It is a long time. Throughout the examination, is this ASP Jude present?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he brief all of you?

A: The moment the three of us entered the room we were briefed.

Q: And dealing with the complainant with high profile individual? Well known public figure?

A: Yes.

Q: That’s why the three of you examine SP1.

A: I was told by my medical officer that he cannot handle the case so he called me. As a surgeon and medical officer on duty I attend it.

Q: It involved a well-known public figure. So it was not an ordinary case?

A: Yes.

Q: Notes were in fact made and recorded on 28th June?

A: Yes.

Q: Notes available?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you produce the notes?

A: It belongs to the hospital.

YA: Where do you work now?

SP2: HUKM

Q: But would it be available if required?

A: Should be made available.

KS: YA, we want those notes to be made available.

MY: The law is very clear. [read S.157 EA].

KS: It’s not as simple as that.

MY: I can ask KS to read that.

KS: I’ve read all of my life.

YA: If the witness wants to refer it, then it should be made available.

KS: This is cross-examination.

YA: So, what do you want? You want the notes taken during the three hours? Let’s hear your submission.

KS: I want the notes made during the three hours to be made available. We need all this notes and a lot of things happened in HKL. Just like the case of black eye incident. Dr. Rahman. We don’t want the reputation of that yet. The notes are in existence and are available. In fact your Lordship can direct it to be made available, subject to admissibility and relevancy. They are relevant. There can be no doubt any notes taken in the course of examination, in the first instance is relevant. What is subsequently reduced in the report is something different. This is notes taken at the first opportunity and that would reflect the truth more than anything else. I keep repeating it. A lot of things happened like the black eye case, where the doc was asked to do certain things. Dr. Rahman Yusof. Where he said that the wound on DSAI’s eyes was self inflicted but that’s another matter. What I said is a lot of things happened before. Like in the case.

These notes are admissible for the purpose of consistency, and to certain extent of corroboration. It could be diametrically the ultimate purpose to be recorded. The report may be different from the other report. I take your Lordship.to the case of Pannerselvam v PP (1991) 1 MLJ [read Headnotes] Of course it is reverse here, but ypur Lordship can apply it. [read] One relevancy, and two admissibility. [continue reading] Just like your Lordship directed that the report yesterday being produced. Likewise should be applied to the report today. We are under; or rather the witness is under the cross-exam. Leading

Question can be asked in cross-examination. The latitude is very wide unlike examination-in-chief. Truth can only be elicited true cross-examination. My learned friend has the statement with him. YA should direct the witness to produce the notes and we want the notes to be examined by our witness, Dr. Wells. Or else anybody can come here and produce the report. The court can must go beyond the surface, beyond the way. Forget about Section 159 and 160 EA.

MY: I’ve referred to S.161 EA which refer to S.159 and S.160 [read S.16 and S.159] So, any writing as in S.159, must be produced if any is referred to during EIC, not during cross-examination. Then only Pannerselvam is relevant. When we talk about corroboration [] eg, the notes made contemporaneously [].

I’ve this bundle of submission when KS make an application to have the notes of the doctors. I refer to the case Saw Thean Teik [read the case]. My learned friend cannot force the prosecution to produce the something to be corroborative during cross-examination when we didn’t want to do so or don’t want to produce it. I refer to Balachandran and Sarkar Law [read]. This is the Indian position, just if my learned friend thinks the court in Malaysia did not know what they are talking about. You can only inspect if the witness refreshes his memory. Forget about admissibility and what not. What is admissible is only what he said. In this court, the trial was governed by the CPC and EA. Court is observing S.59 and S.60 of EA [read]. Here is a person who is being examined and he submit his oral evidence. My learned friend has not shown any basis legally for him the right to be supplied of the notes and not even the right to inspect which is the basic. I’m not living in the past. 10 years ago was happened. This is different. Now is now. Enough political speech in this court. At this point in time, KS has not shown any basis for the ct to supply the notes or even to inspect it. In fact, Pannerselvam did not support this.

KS: What happened 10 years ago should not be forgotten. It happened in HKL. We can’t forget the past.

MY: []

KS: Was the IGP imprisoned?

MY: I was in the inquiry.

KS: I was also in the inquiry. We refer to the case of DSAI, in relation to discovery in S.51. Pre-trial discovery.

YA: Don’t refer to it. It is a bad law. Don’t rely on it.

KS: I take your Lordship to the case of DSAI, Federal Court decision, it had not said it was a bad law. It was taken up at the wrong time. This is the right time. I refer to the case of DSAI [2010] 2 MLJ, page 312. I take your Lordship to para 43, page 329 [read]. In the context of principle laid down in Raymond Chia [read]. This is made in the course of the trial. The Federal Court was saying that in the course of the trial there can be discovery. Discovery of documents which are relevant and admissible. And therefore this is what we are doing now. We are not fishing for evidence. It is evidence which has been elicited throughout the cross-examination from this witness. He said there are notes can be made available, taken down for 3 hours and not 3 minutes. Why is the prosecution show afraid of this notes becoming available to this court. YA is here to ensure the truth prevails. The prosecutor should prosecute and not to [] but honestly this court must ensure that it is done. YA is a referee here, must take a stand which has been attached, must not be [] but the law as the law is there. The Federal Court has said it. In the course of trial, yes. Pre-trial, no. That’s why your Lordship what the Federal Court has said is in accordance with common sense and natural justice. Everything must be laid down in this court without any attempt to hide the truth.
I refer s.145 EA. The latitude gives for the defence in cross-examination as given under S.145 [read]. We can’t do that unless we have those notes. What is in those notes taken for a period of 3 hours is material to impeach this witness. It is not as simple what my learned friend made it to be. []. YA should take time to consider this matter.

MY: May I reply since my learned friend submit in installment, I’ve to reply by installment. That case that my learned friend cited just now is not relevant with what we have today, because only 3 weeks ago the Federal Court has decided that the application by the defence for the notes of exhibit where Dr. Wells filed the affidavit, it decided that they are not entitled to it. And it was made in the course of the trial, of course. Because whatever the Federal Court wants to say, the Federal Court cannot rewrite the law. Either it gave effect to it or interpret it and pursue it at the manner it was admissible. It’s ambiguous but here is very clear. The Federal Court has decided not to rewrite the law. So the law remains as it is. S.159, and S.161. Until and unless my learned friend can now show basis to the court either because the witness has referred to any notes during the EIC, or suddenly KS has a hunch which then has to satisfy the requirement said out in Mokhtar Hashim’s case, then it is my humble opinion in my submission, my Lord at the defence is not entitled to it.

Question of being afraid does not arise.

KS: My learned friend refers to the Federal Court case. [] but all the time any appeal by us is not a final order. []. There has been no ruling by the Federal Court. There is no such a ruling. Easy way out. Not a final order. It is supported by my learned friend that there will be nothing by the Federal Court []

MY: Then the High Court ruling stands.

KS: [] The Federal Court has done nothing. Federal Court has no ruling under the law. []

YA: Ini kalau besides benda-benda ni, any other aspect cross-examination you can proceed. As you said I need time to come out with the ruling. For the time being, to save time can we proceed with other question on other aspect?

KS: This is very important. The notes.

YA: I know it’s important but I’m sure you have some other aspect that is equally important. We can proceed to save time.
KS: Everything depends on your Lordship’s ruling. []

YA: That means you don’t have anything else beside this?

KS: There will be but nothing at this moment. The evidence is on the report.

YA: So, you mean to say that you cannot proceed without my ruling?

KS: Effectively proceed after that after your ruling.

YA: Stand down for a while. I’ll try make my ruling by this afternoon.

[2.54 p.m.] Stand down

[3.17 p.m.]

YA: I agree normally the defence is not entitled to inspect a contemporaneous notes. It is not a medical report. However in this case we are not dealing with contemporaneous notes taken out as medical report. That’s what the application is about. Therefore in the interest of justice I’m allowing the defence application for this report to be supplied and inspected.

MY: It’s the contemporaneous notes, not the report. The report has no problem.

YA: You are talking about that report?

MY: Yes. Yesterday I’ve given them the copy of the report. They are asking about the notes.

YA: So, they are asking for the notes?

KS: We are asking for the notes taken by the three doctors for 3 hours examination. The notes, unlike the report. The notes is recorded, YA.

MY: The reports was based on the notes.

CV: The written notes, YA.

YA: You mean the contemporaneous notes they took during the examination, not the one they wrote and signed?

KS: We haven’t come to that yet.

MY: Yesterday, we stood down for the medical report of HKL. But now KS is not asking for that, but the contemporaneous notes.

KS: I’ve not come to that yet.

YA: I don’t know but I understand from your submission on Tuesday, he takes down the note, he prepare it, the one dated 10th, he signed it, the 10th. Subsequently, [] I was under the impression you were asking for the report on the 10th. The report on the 10th

KS: No. The notes contemporaneously taken during the examination. We are asking for the originally notes recoded for the three hour examination done on SP1, in writing of course.

YA: That’s mean my ruling is the same. [read the ruling] If you want, my ruling still stands. But from that notes he reduced it into report on the 10th, I allow it. So if you want you can have it. But for the contemporaneous notes my ruling stand.

KS: Can we have a short break? Need to discuss with my team.

YA: For how long?

KS: 20 minutes.

YA: Stand down.

[3.24 p.m.] Stand down.

[3.38 p.m.]

MY: Witness is in the restroom, YA.

YA: Never mind, we wait. Usually they wait for us.

KS: YA, we take it our application is declined. However, []

YA: The report that was reduced into writing, the one they signed but did not produced it. The report dated 10th July 2008.

Q: Is there such report dated 10th july 2008?

A: It was a prepared report that planned to be issued, but is never been issued because we have a laboratory result before that. So called, the report dated 10th of July are supposed to come out, but didn’t been issued. And then the formal report was done and it is formally come out together with the laboratory report.

Q: Is there a report dated 10th July?

A: A preliminary report.

Q: Is there’s a doc signed on 10th of July? Doesn’t matter if preliminary or otherwise.

A: Yes.

Q: Signed by the three of you?

A: Yes.

Q: You saw the date before you signed it?

A: Yes.

Q: All the report ought to be signed and dated?

A: Yes.

Q: Dated 10th July?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you look at it?

A: [witness give the doc to the defence counsel]

Q: You said you signed it on the 10th?

A: Yes.

Q: Can u show the date?

A: [show page one]

Q: Date is on the last page, isn’t it? Always on the last page.

A: On the 2nd page of the report dated 10th July.

Q: Is there such a date on the last page?

A: Not on the signatory part.

Q: Is there such word “dated 10th July 2008” on the last page?

A: It’s dated on the 2nd page.

Q: Is there the word “dated 10th of July”?

A: No.

Q: Is it stated anywhere “dated 10th of July”?

A: No.

Q: Those words are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: Therefore it is not dated.

A: Yes.

KS: We’ve to take instruction from DSAI regarding this document.

YA: You want it to be marked?

KS: Not for the moment, YA.

Q: Look at P22. P22 is the production of what happened from 28th June to 13th July?

A: We summarized the event.

Q: Is P22 the main result of what happened on 28th June?

A: Yes.

Q: Is P22 part of what happened on 28th?

A: Not part of it. What happened on it.

Q: Part of it is much more than this, isn’t it?

A: It is what happened .

Q: Much more detailed than this?

A: It is summarized.

Q: Do you wish to refer your notes? Easy for us, for all of us.

A: No.

Q: It presents the report, what actually transpire. It’s a summary, not a complete report. The word summary means incomplete.

A: Summary means summarized, sum up of everything what we collected [] and put in specific details. It is regarded as complete []

Q: Is it a summary or otherwise? Is it complete?

A: The word is different. It’s something we compile, but not otherwise.

YA: Leave it to submission.

KS: I need to know what exactly he meant by the word summary. We can’t take whatever mumbo jumbo he says.

YA: As far as I’m concern, he meant that the summary and complete report are the same thing.

Q: During this 3 hours, the examination only for 3 hours?

A: Not only examination, include history.

Q: History on P22, two lines, so incomplete. Because there’s much more on it.

A: I said summary is the sum up of the whole story. There’s so much of story the patient will tell us. Story from the patient is the same as from the history. []

Q: So it was recorded?

A: Yes. It was for us to bring out the important and summarized it to give us clear picture on what we are working on.

Q: So the two liner is the history of it?

A: [does not have chance to answer]

Q: How long does you take to take the history of the patient?

A: I’m not involved, but Dr. Siew and Dr. Khairul.

Q: How long did he take?

A: I can’t remember that.

Q: Is bowel history is taken?

A: I was not involved in taking the history at all. I’m not involved in directly clerking the history.

Q: Were you aware or did SP1 tell the three of you that he sees other doctor?

A: it was summarized when we enter the room. We were informed.

Q: Whom did he see earlier?

A: A doctor in a private hospital, Pusrawi.

Q: Did you find out exactly what actually transpired in Pusrawi?

A: No.

Q: Was there any attempt taken to know what happened at Pusrawi?

A: Yes.

Q: By whom?

A: I don’t remember. But I remember it was done in Pusrawi.

Q: That he was examined by Dr. Osman?

A: The doctor I don’t remember, but only the hospital.

Q: That was not recorded here, P22 or anywhere here?

A: []

Q: Do you need to refresh your memory?

YA: If we cannot remember what we did, we can refer to notes. But we have to show it to the oppsing party.

KS: We can’t force you but we can persuade you very gently

Q: You said it was recorded just now.

A: I wasn’t aware. Anything that has been examined should have been recorded.

Q: It was important so it was recorded.

A: Yes.

Q: All three of you have gone through the history therefore you came up with the ultimate report,P22 isn’t it?

A: I can’t remember.

KS: That’s why you must refer to the notes. No problem.

A: I was made aware that the report was recorded.

Q: You must be responsible as the other two. For the report. Because you have gone to the history. With regard to what he had told you on what happened at Pusrawi.

A: Yes. But P22..

Q: Are you in a position to recollect of what was done on SP1. What was said by SP1 with regard as to how and what happened in Pusrawi .

A: He didn’t tell me exactly.

Q: That’s why you need to refer to the notes. The notes will reveal it, won’t it?

A: I’m not sure.

Q: Why can’t you refer?

A: Because I’m not involved directly in the taking of the history.

MY: May I say something? The whole idea of refreshing the memory is to what he did.

KS: My learned friend should not interrupt me. The sequence is lost.

YA: I’m going to hear him.

MY: He’s asked on what he did. Just like in Pannerselvam. He prepared the notes. Here, the witness said since Monday that he was not the one prepared the history note.

YA: I would assume they collectively in making the examination he is aware.

MY: He did not take the history. It is not something he noted.

YA: For the time being I’m going to allow, but I’m going to make a ruling on the DPP’s objection.

Q: You signed as one of the three doctors in P22.

A: Yes.

Q: You jointly did the report. So you jointly are responsible for the report?

A: Yes. On the part of what I did.

Q: Not part, but jointly. Namely what had happened in Pusrawi. But you cannot remember.

A: I was made aware.

Q: But this is the joint report, and you can’t remember it now.

A: I can’t remember the details. But he was examined by a private hospital doctor.

KS: So to recollect your memory, you have to refer to the notes?

MY: May I know what is the detail he wants to know?

KS: If my learned friend wants to go into the witness box, he does not need to give a lecture on law.

YA: He cannot remember the details. Ask specific one.

Q: To be able to remember what transpires at Pusrawi, you must to refer to the notes.

A: Give me some time to try to remember. I don’t need to refer to the notes.

Q: So you don’t want to refer the notes?

A: No.

Q: P22, last page. Under “summary concluded” [read]. Do u know the meaning conclusive?

A: Yes.

Q: What’s does that mean?

A: Meaning very sure.

Q: What is the meaning of clinical?

A: The assessment done by doctors.

Q: Clinical means [read dictionary]

A: Assessment done by doctors.

KS: That’s not the meaning of clinical.

MY: He has answer. You cannot be looking at the dictionary. He prepared the report and this is what he understands.

Q: What is the meaning of clinical?

A: Assessment done by doctors.

Q: Objective assessment?

A: Anything must be done objectively.

Q: P22, what was the Chemist Report available at the time to the three of you. How many were available? How many that are available on 13th July?

A: One full chemist report.

Q: One chemist report?

A: Yes.

Q: Who’s report?

A: I can’t remember the names.

Q: Do you want to refer the notes?

A: No need.

MY: The notes is not the Chemist Report.

YA: []

KS: Chemist must have a name.

YA: If he don’t remember, he must refer to the notes.

SP2: Can I check the lab report?

Q: In P22, there was only one chemist report referred to you?

A: Yes. Only one report gives to us.

Q: []

A: I don’t get what you mean. Only one report was given to us.

Q: What is the number of the report?

A: [witness ask permission from court to refer P22]

Q: You cannot remember the Chemist Report?

A: No.

Q: You remember the details of P22?

A: Yes.

Q: How many Chemist Report are there in P22?

A: It is here. [read].

Q: So, there were two reports?

A: I’m sorry. I make a mistake. A lot of pressure. I saw it as one.

Q: What do you mean?

A: The whole thing is just one, nothing extra after that.

Q: I cannot understand.

A: They can give us more than one but it is stacked as one, so I regard it as one. It comes in more than one stack, but we consider it as one.

KS: Can we stop now? We must stop now.

YA: Can’t you finish with him?

KS: We need to take instruction from DSAI.

MY: I’ve made available the report on the 10th July.

YA: Can we start tomorrow, DPP?

KS: Day after tomorrow perhaps? The Indian PM is coming and there’s a lunch I’m invited to. All of us.

MY: We can still start tomorrow.

YA: This is more important. We’ve start at 8.30 a.m.

KS: I don’t mind as long as we can stop at 10.30. Because the lunch is at 11.

YA: If you want to stop early tomorrow. Whatever time we have now we use it.

MY: We can stop at 5.

KS: We start tomorrow morning. I forgo the lunch.

YA: Tomorrow 8.30 a.m.

<p style=”color: blue;”>[9. 17 a.m.]
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:    All parties as yesterday. With the exception of Mr Karpal Singh. Case for continuance of cross-examination of SP2.
<p style=”color: blue;”>SN:    I have been informed by Karpal’s family that fortunately the test for dengue is negative. However because of his diarrhea he suffered, he require some time for recovery.  He request he could come back at 2.pm. Meanwhile we require some time to prepare in the event Karpal could not make it this afternoon. We will continue at 2.pm. Could we have the matter stood down at 2 p.m.? We would be obliged.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:    I sincerely hope whether it is Encik Karpal or somebody else for the cross-examination to be carried on this afternoon.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:    In the event Karpal could not make it this afternoon, we will commence cross-examination at 2 p.m.
<p style=”color: blue;”>SN:    We will. We will also confirmed with each other who is to take the cross examination in the afternoon.
<p style=”color: blue;”>[9.22 a.m.] Stand down 

<p style=”color: blue;”>[2.08 p.m.]
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     Parties as previously. Case for continuance of cross-examination of SP2, Dr. Razali bin Ibrahim.

<p style=”color: blue;”>SP2 Takes oath in English.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     You remember giving evidence on Monday?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Let me refresh your memory. You said in cross-examination, a report was prepared on 28th June 2008. Initial report. Is it correct? Was there a report prepared on 28th June?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Prepared on 29th. 28th is the examination of the victim.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is it correct on Monday you said it was done on 28th and not 29th?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    It’s made on 29th June 2008.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    That’s a lie.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I make mistake.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     So make mistake with regard with the date?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes. I forgot the date.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    You said further, that on 28th June there’s there was a separate report. I take it from what you have told the court.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes. I understood. Actually the exact date was on 29th. The report was carried out subse<p style=”color: blue;”>Quent to the examination because on 28th June I did examination on the patient.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    So there were notes made?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Notes on 28th? Made contemporaneous with the examination?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    It was reduced and summarized on 29th.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Dated 29th June?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    It was initiated on 29th June.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     On 29th, it was not dated?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    It was in the process.

<p style=”color: blue;”><p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     Process of being prepared?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”><p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    It was prepared on 29th?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    By when was it ready?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    10th July.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    It could be dated as 10th of July?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    It is the date the report should come out.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    When was the report reduced into writing?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    10th July.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Who dated it?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I can’t remember who dated it.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    But it was dated?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Signed by three of you?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    P22, dated 13th of July. All three of you signed it? And specifically dated and signed?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    The one on 10th July likewise,  should be signed just like P22. P22 was signed by three of you. It is a requirement to sign every page?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Any report that is going to be issued out must be signed on every page.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    The purpose of signing every page is to ensure there’s no inclusion. Do you agree?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    P22 was signed on every page?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    That’s the formal report. So, yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Any formal report must be signed every page. Do you agree?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Any report we want to issue must be signed on every page.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    The report on 10th july is signed?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    We signed with intention to come out with the report, but we have a laboratory result that will help us [].

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    The report was done, signed by 3 of u, but not issued?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Each page was signed but not issued?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I can’t remember whether I signed it on every page, but I did sign it.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Normally you sign it?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I usually signed on the report where it has my name, but not on every page.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    P22 was not signed by you?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    P22 was signed at all pages. Because I have my colleagues to signed all pages for medico-legal case.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    But you made an exception to the report you made on 10th July.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     To be fair to the witness, he said he cannot remember. He said he sign it, but can’t remember whether it is on every page.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Was there an exception?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    That is something I learn from this case. Before this I only sign at the end of the report.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    On 28th June, the examination of Saiful (SP1) is for 3 hours?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes. From 9.00 pm to 12.00 a.m.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    It is a long time. Throughout the examination, is this ASP Jude present?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Did he brief all of you?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    The moment the three of us entered the room we were briefed.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    And dealing with the complainant with high profile individual? Well known public figure?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    That’s why the three of you examine SP1.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I was told by my medical officer that he cannot handle the case so he called me. As a surgeon and medical officer on duty I attend it.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    It involved a well-known public figure. So it was not an ordinary case?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Notes were in fact made and recorded on 28th June?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Notes available?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Can you produce the notes?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    It belongs to the hospital.

<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Where do you work now?
<p style=”color: blue;”>SP2:     HUKM

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    But would it be available if required?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Should be made available.

<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     YA, we want those notes to be made available.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     The law is very clear. [read S.157 EA].
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     It’s not as simple as that.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     I can ask KS to read that.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:    I’ve read all of my life.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     If the witness wants to refer it, then it should be made available.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     This is cross-examination.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     So, what do you want? You want the notes taken during the three hours? Let’s hear your submission.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     I want the notes made during the three hours to be made available. We need all this notes and a lot of things happened in HKL. Just like the case of black eye incident. Dr. Rahman. We don’t want the reputation of that yet. The notes are in existence and are available. In fact your Lordship can direct it to be made available, subject to admissibility and relevancy. They are relevant. There can be no doubt any notes taken in the course of examination, in the first instance is relevant. What is subsequently reduced in the report is something different. This is notes taken at the first opportunity and that would reflect the truth more than anything else. I keep repeating it. A lot of things happened like the black eye case, where the doc was asked to do certain things. Dr. Rahman Yusof.  Where he said that the wound on DSAI’s eyes was self inflicted but that’s another matter. What I said is a lot of things happened before. Like in the case.

<p style=”color: blue;”>These notes are admissible for the purpose of consistency, and to certain extent of corroboration. It could be diametrically the ultimate purpose to be recorded. The report may be different from the other report. I take your Lordship.to the case of Pannerselvam v PP (1991) 1 MLJ [read Headnotes] Of course it is reverse here, but ypur Lordship can apply it. [read] One relevancy, and two admissibility. [continue reading] Just like your Lordship directed that the report yesterday being produced. Likewise should be applied to the report today. We are under; or rather the witness is under the cross-exam. Leading <p style=”color: blue;”>Question can be asked in cross-examination. The latitude is very wide unlike examination-in-chief. Truth can only be elicited true cross-examination. My learned friend has the statement with him.  YA should direct the witness to produce the notes and we want the notes to be examined by our witness, Dr. Wells. Or else anybody can come here and produce the report.  The court can must go beyond the surface, beyond the way. Forget about Section 159 and 160 EA.

<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     I’ve referred to S.161 EA which refer to S.159 and S.160 [read S.16 and S.159] So, any writing as in S.159, must be produced if any is referred to during EIC, not during cross-examination. Then only Pannerselvam is relevant. When we talk about corroboration [] eg, the notes made contemporaneously [].

<p style=”color: blue;”>I’ve this bundle of submission when KS make an application to have the notes of the doctors. I refer to the case Saw Thean Teik [read the case]. My learned friend cannot force the prosecution to produce the something to be corroborative during cross-examination when we didn’t want to do so or don’t want to produce it. I refer to Balachandran and Sarkar Law [read]. This is the Indian position, just if my learned friend thinks the court in Malaysia did not know what they are talking about. You can only inspect if the witness refreshes his memory. Forget about admissibility and what not. What is admissible is only what he said.  In this court, the trial was governed by the CPC and EA. Court is observing S.59 and S.60 of EA [read]. Here is a person who is being examined and he submit his oral evidence. My learned friend has not shown any basis legally for him the right to be supplied of the notes and not even the right to inspect which is the basic. I’m not living in the past. 10 years ago was happened. This is different. Now is now. Enough political speech in this court. At this point in time, KS has not shown any basis for the ct to supply the notes or even to inspect it. In fact, Pannerselvam did not support this.

<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     What happened 10 years ago should not be forgotten. It happened in HKL. We can’t forget the past.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     []
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     Was the IGP imprisoned?
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:    I was in the in<p style=”color: blue;”>Quiry.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     I was also in the in<p style=”color: blue;”>Quiry. We refer to the case of DSAI, in relation to discovery in S.51. Pre-trial discovery.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Don’t refer to it. It is a bad law. Don’t rely on it.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     I take your Lordship to the case of DSAI, Federal Court decision, it had not said it was a bad law. It was taken up at the wrong time. This is the right time. I refer to the case of DSAI [2010] 2 MLJ, page 312. I take your Lordship to para 43, page 329 [read]. In the context of principle laid down in Raymond Chia [read]. This is made in the course of the trial. The Federal Court was saying that in the course of the trial there can be discovery. Discovery of documents which are relevant and admissible. And therefore this is what we are doing now. We are not fishing for evidence. It is evidence which has been elicited throughout the cross-examination from this witness. He said there are notes can be made available, taken down for 3 hours and not 3 minutes. Why is the prosecution show afraid of this notes becoming available to this court. YA is here to ensure the truth prevails. The prosecutor should prosecute and not to [] but honestly this court must ensure that it is done. YA is a referee here, must take a stand which has been attached, must not be [] but the law as the law is there. The Federal Court has said it. In the course of trial, yes. Pre-trial, no. That’s why your Lordship what the Federal Court has said is in accordance with common sense and natural justice.  Everything must be laid down in this court without any attempt to hide the truth.
I refer s.145 EA. The latitude gives for the defence in cross-examination as given under S.145 [read]. We can’t do that unless we have those notes. What is in those notes taken for a period of 3 hours is material to impeach this witness. It is not as simple what my learned friend made it to be. []. YA should take time to consider this matter.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     May I reply since my learned friend submit in installment, I’ve to reply by installment. That case that my learned friend cited just now is not relevant with what we have today, because only 3 weeks ago the Federal Court has decided that the application by the defence for the notes of exhibit where Dr. Wells filed the affidavit, it decided that they are not entitled to it. And it was made in the course of the trial, of course. Because whatever the Federal Court wants to say, the Federal Court cannot rewrite the law. Either it gave effect to it or interpret it and pursue it at the manner it was admissible. It’s ambiguous but here is very clear. The Federal Court has decided not to rewrite the law. So the law remains as it is. S.159, and S.161. Until and unless my learned friend can now show basis to the court either because the witness has referred to any notes during the EIC, or suddenly KS has a hunch which then has to satisfy the re<p style=”color: blue;”>Quirement said out in Mokhtar Hashim’s case, then it is my humble opinion in my submission, my Lord at the defence is not entitled to it. <p style=”color: blue;”>Question of being afraid does not arise.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     My learned friend refers to the Federal Court case. [] but all the time any appeal by us is not a final order. []. There has been no ruling by the Federal Court. There is no such a ruling. Easy way out. Not a final order. It is supported by my learned friend that there will be nothing by the Federal Court []
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     Then the High Court ruling stands.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     [] The Federal Court has done nothing. Federal Court has no ruling under the law. []
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Ini kalau besides benda-benda ni, any other aspect cross-examination you can proceed. As u said I need time to come out with the ruling. For the time being, to save time can we proceed with other question on other aspect?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     This is very important. The notes.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     I know it’s important but I’m sure you have some other aspect that is e<p style=”color: blue;”>Qually important. We can proceed to save time.
KS:    Everything depends on your Lordship’s ruling. []
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     That means you don’t have anything else beside this?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:    There will be but nothing at this moment. The evidence is on the report.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:    So, you mean to say that you cannot proceed without my ruling?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:    Effectively proceed after that after your ruling.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:    Stand down for a while. I’ll try make my ruling by this afternoon.
<p style=”color: blue;”>[2.54 p.m.] Stand down

<p style=”color: blue;”>[3.17 p.m.]
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     I agree normally the defence is not entitled to inspect a contemporaneous notes. It is not a medical report. However in this case we are not dealing with contemporaneous notes taken out as med rp. That’s what the application is about. Therefore in the interest of justice I’m allowing the defence application for this report to be supplied and inspected.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     It’s the contemporaneous notes, not the report. The report has no problem.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     You are talking about that report?
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     Yes. Yesterday I’ve given them the copy of the report. They are asking about the notes.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     So, they are asking for the notes?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     We are asking for the notes taken by the three doctors for 3 hours examination. The notes, unlike the report. The notes is recorded, YA.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     The reports was based on the notes.
<p style=”color: blue;”>CV:     The written notes, YA.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     You mean the contemporaneous notes they took during the examination, not the one they wrote and signed?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:    We haven’t come to that yet.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     Yesterday, we stood down for the medical report of HKL. But now KS is not asking for that, but the contemporaneous notes.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:    I’ve not come to that yet.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     I don’t know but I understand from your submission on Tuesday, he takes down the note, he prepare it, the one dated 10th, he signed it, the 10th.Subse<p style=”color: blue;”>Quently, [] I was under the impression you were asking for the report on the 10th. The report on the 10th
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     No. The notes contemporaneously taken during the examination. We are asking for the originally notes recoded for the three hour examination done on SP1, in writing of course.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:    That’s mean my ruling is the same. [read the ruling] If you want, my ruling still stands. But from that notes he reduced it into report on the 10th, I allow it. So if you want you can have it. But for the contemporaneous notes my ruling stand.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     Can we have a short break? Need to discuss with my team.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     For how long?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     20 minutes.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Stand down.
<p style=”color: blue;”>[3.24 p.m.] Stand down.

<p style=”color: blue;”>[3.38 p.m.]
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     Witness is in the restroom, YA.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Never mind, we wait. Usually they wait for us.

<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     YA, we take it our application is declined. However, []
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     The report that was reduced into writing, the one they signed but did not produced it. The report dated 10th July 2008.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     Is there such report dated 10th july 2008?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     It was a prepared report that planned to be issued, but is never been issued because we have a laboratory result before that. So called, the report dated 10th of July are supposed to come out, but didn’t been issued. And then the formal report was done and it is formally come out together with the laboratory report.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     Is there a report dated 10th July?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     A preliminary report.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     Is there’s a doc signed on 10th of July? Doesn’t matter if preliminary or otherwise.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Signed by the three of you?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    You saw the date before you signed it?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     All the report ought to be signed and dated?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Dated 10th July?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Can you look at it?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    [witness give the doc to the defence counsel]

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    You said you signed it on the 10th?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Can u show the date?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    [show page one]

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Date is on the last page, isn’t it? Always on the last page.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    on the 2nd page of the report dated 10th July.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is there such a date on the last page?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Not on the signatory part.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is there such word “dated 10th July 2008” on the last page?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    It’s dated on the 2nd page.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is there the word “dated 10th of July”?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    No.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is it stated anywhere “dated 10th of July”?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    No.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Those words are not there.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     Therefore it is not dated.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     We’ve to take instruction from DSAI regarding this document.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     You want it to be marked?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     Not for the moment, YA.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Look at P22. P22 is the production of what happened from 28th June to 13th July?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    We summarized the event.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is P22 the main result of what happened on 28th June?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.
<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is P22 part of what happened on 28th?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Not part of it. What happened on it.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     Part of it is much more than this, isn’t it?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     It is what happened .

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Much more detailed than this?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     It is summarized.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     Do you wish to refer your notes? Easy for us, for all of us.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     No.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    It presents the report, what actually transpire. It’s a summary, not a complete report. The word summary means incomplete.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Summary means summarized, sum up of everything what we collected [] and put in specific details. It is regarded as complete []

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is it a summary or otherwise? Is it complete?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    The word is different. It’s something we compile, but not otherwise.

<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Leave it to submission.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     I need to know what exactly he meant by the word summary. We can’t take whatever mumbo jumbo he says.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     As far as I’m concern, he meant that the summary and complete report are the same thing.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    During this 3 hours, the examination only for 3 hours?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Not only examination, include history.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    History on P22, two lines, so incomplete. Because there’s much more on it.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I said summary is the sum up of the whole story. There’s so much of story the patient will tell us. Story from the patient is the same as from the history. []

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    So it was recorded?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes. It was for us to bring out the important and summarized it to give us clear picture on what we are working on.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    So the two liner is the history of it?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    [does not have chance to answer]

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    How long does you take to take the history of the patient?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I’m not involved, but Dr. Siew and Dr. Khairul.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    How long did he take?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I can’t remember that.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Is bowel history is taken?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I was not involved in taking the history at all. I’m not involved in directly clerking the history.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Were you aware or did SP1 tell the three of you that he sees other doctor?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    it was summarized when we enter the room. We were informed.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Whom did he see earlier?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    A doctor in a private hospital, Pusrawi.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Did you find out exactly what actually transpired in Pusrawi?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    No.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Was there any attempt taken to know what happened at Pusrawi?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    By whom?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I don’t remember. But I remember it was done in Pusrawi.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    That he was examined by Dr. Osman?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     The doctor I don’t remember, but only the hospital.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    That was not recorded here, P22 or anywhere here?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    []

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Do you need to refresh your memory?

<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:    If we cannot remember what we did, we can refer to notes. But we have to show it to the oppsing party.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     We can’t force you but we can persuade you very gently

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    You said it was recorded just now.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I wasn’t aware. Anything that has been examined should have been recorded.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    It was important so it was recorded.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    All three of you have gone through the history therefore you came up with the ultimate report,P22  isn’t it?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I can’t remember.

<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:    That’s why you must refer to the notes. No problem.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I was made aware that the report was recorded.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    You must be responsible as the other two. For the report. Because you have gone to the history. With regard to what he had told you on what happened at Pusrawi.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes. But P22..

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Are you in a position to recollect of what was done on SP1. What was said by SP1 with regard as to how and what happened in Pusrawi .
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    He didn’t tell me exactly.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    That’s why you need to refer to the notes. The notes will reveal it, won’t it?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I’m not sure.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Why can’t you refer?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Because I’m not involved directly in the taking of the history.

<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     May I say something? The whole idea of refreshing the memory is to what he did.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     My learned friend should not interrupt me. The se<p style=”color: blue;”>Quence is lost.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:    I’m going to hear him.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     He’s asked on what he did. Just like in Pannerselvam. He prepared the notes. Here, the witness said since Monday that he was not the one prepared the history note.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     I would assume they collectively in making the examination he is aware.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:    He did not take the history. It is not something he noted.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     For the time being I’m going to allow, but I’m going to make a ruling on the DPP’s objection.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    You signed as one of the three doctors in P22.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     You jointly did the report. So you jointly are responsible for the report?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes. On the part of what I did.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Not part, but jointly. Namely what had happened in Pusrawi. But you cannot remember.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I was made aware.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    But this is the joint report, and you can’t remember it now.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I can’t remember the details. But he was examined by a private hospital doctor.

<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:    So to recollect your memory, you have to refer to the notes?
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:    May I know what is the detail he wants to know?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     If my learned friend wants to go into the witness box, he does not need to give a     lecture on law.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     He cannot remember the details. Ask specific one.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:     To be able to remember what transpires at Pusrawi, you must to refer to  the notes.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    LGive me some time to try to remember. I don’t need to refer to the notes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    So you don’t want to refer the notes?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    No.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    P22, last page. Under “summary concluded” [read]. Do u know the meaning conclusive?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    What’s does that mean?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Meaning very sure.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    What is the meaning of clinical?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    The assessment done by doctors.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Clinical means [read dictionary]
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Assessment done by doctors.

<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     That’s not the meaning of clinical.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     He has answer. You cannot be looking at the dictionary. He prepared the report and this is what he understands.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    What is the meaning of clinical?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Assessment done by doctors.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Objective assessment?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Anything must be done objectively.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    P22, what was the Chemist Report available at the time to the three of u. How many were available? How many that are available on 13th July?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    One full chemist report.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    One chemist report?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Who’s report?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I can’t remember the names.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    Do you want to refer the notes?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    No need.

<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     The notes is not the Chemist Report.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:      []
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     Chemist must have a name.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     If he don’t remember, he must refer to the notes.
<p style=”color: blue;”>SP2:    Can I check the lab report?

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    In P22, there was only one chemist report referred to you?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    Yes. Only one report gives to us.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    []
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I don’t get what you mean. Only one report was given to us.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    What is the number of the report?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    [witness ask permission from court to refer P22]

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    You cannot remember the Chemist Report?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     No.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    You remember the details of P22?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:     Yes.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    How many Chemist Report are there in P22?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    It is here. [read].

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    So, there were two reports?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    I’m sorry. I make a mistake. A lot of pressure. I saw it as one.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    What do you mean?
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    The whole thing is just one, nothing extra after that.

<p style=”color: blue;”>Q:    I cannot understand.
<p style=”color: blue;”>A:    They can give us more than one but it is stacked as one, so I regard it as one. It comes in more than one stack, but we consider it as one.

<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     Can we stop now? We must stop now.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Can’t you finish with him?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     We need to take instruction from DSAI.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:    I’ve made available the report on the 10th July.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Can we start tomorrow, DPP?
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     Day after tomorrow perhaps? The Indian PM is coming and there’s a lunch I’m invited to. All of us.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:    We can still start tomorrow.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     This is more important. We’ve start at 8.30 a.m.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     I don’t mind as long as we can stop at 10.30. Because the lunch is at 11.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     If you want to stop early tomorrow. Whatever time we have now we use it.
<p style=”color: blue;”>MY:     We can stop at 5.
<p style=”color: blue;”>KS:     We start tomorrow morning. I forgo the lunch.
<p style=”color: blue;”>YA:     Tomorrow 8.30 a.m.

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

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: