jump to navigation

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 14 Mac 2011 March 17, 2011

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

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

PP:    Semua hadir
PB:    KS, SN, Ram Karpal, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Marissa, (Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB:    Zambri Idrus (for complainant)

[9.19 a.m.]
MY:    Hujahan bagi 2 permohonan pendakwaan untuk mahkamah yang mulia ini menyemak semula ruling yang dibuat di akhir perbicaraan dalam perbicaraan berkaitan dengan admissibility keterangan berkaitan eksibit yang diambil di sel lokap IPK KL dan juga permohonan di bawah Seksyen 73 dan 165 Akta Keterangan untuk Mahkamah ini memerintahkan DSAI memberikan sampel untuk DNA analisis.

KS:    YA, before my learned friend proceeds, there are certain matters of more than [] consent must also involved this court. This is with regard of the mischievous report, scandalous report, contentious report, of NST of

Saturday and this morning, and also in Utusan Malaysia which we have copies for it, before we proceed, may be your Lordship wants to look at it. On Saturday, the report was “Anwar [] to give DNA sample to the court.

“Demonstration”, as reported in today’s newspaper. “Prosecution files application citing from Evidence Act from judges power”.

The first time in legal history of this country this is happening. The submission of the AG in fact on the internet even before my learned friend started up just now. The entire set of the submission, [] it happened all the time, but for my learned friend to leak out his submission to the internet, for i.e in Malaysia Today, in entirety.

First, this court must of itself, there is no point we filing an application, but it must be the consent from the court in which the court must call upon those who have leak this report, those who reported it, and those who taking part in the demonstration, we want you them to be decided as contempt of court. We want that to be decided first, before my learned friend gets on to the submission which already in the public knowledge. I’m shocked that my learned friend took that role. My learned friend is in the hand of politicians now. It is normal to think YA, here, as representing the Public Prosecutor, he is being manipulated. He is allowing himself to be manipulated.

We want a ruling on that, YA. One, on how that report got leak, YA, or rather the submission and the demonstrators, YA, the manner in which the entire issue had been politically exploited. What is with the press, and what the demonstrators in demanding is in fact intermediating this court, intermediating your Lordship to make an order for DSAI to supply his DNA profile. That is contemptuous. We would wish you to make a ruling on that.

We want to see your Lordship in chambers now, before my learned friend proceeds, unless of course if my learned friend wants to show it here, now, himself which we had prepared for. Let me make it very clear to him. But we rather see you in chambers now. At the moment, that would be all.

MY:    I will reply to that, My Lord. I would like to think that professionally, throughout this trial, I do my battle in court, not outside. Now, whether or not the public knows that I am making this application, I have stated this in open court last Friday, that we are going to make an application that we have take out the extraction, which upon based on the premise. Now, the causes had been distress as much as the causes [], that when the submission we prepared was published. As lead counsel, I take responsibility on that. But the issue is this, whether or not it is contemptuous.

My Lord, not long ago, in the open court before Komathy J, I complaint about an affidavit filed not referred to in court being published in the newspaper. Of course, if we were to read the Etiquette Rules, under Section 50A that you cannot have it published until that particular paragraph had been referred to in the open court.
But we have a decision by Abdul Wahab J, who said that it’s all right because the public has the right to inform. But now, what about this, it is a submission, only a submission. We are not making an allegation, it is only excerpt on Sarkar on Evidence, which anybody can have access to, and can read. It is nothing will have the effect prejudicing the trial. If the members of the public, one of the parties want to demonstrate, not because of the submission but because of the application and that has nothing to do with the prosecution.

I am a bit sad that my learned friend made accusation that I allow myself to be manipulated by the politician. I will not let myself to be used by anybody. I think as long as this concern, I answered to no one, except to this Honorable

Court. To what extent that this will prejudicing your mind, bearing in mind that this is not a jury trial. I don’t see why en. Karpal can be so emotional about it. I don’t think that it is really anything. It just that the submission go out earlier than it should be. And I pray to your Lordship not to entertain the application by my learned friend to call anybody and cite them to contempt. Thanks.

KS:    We reply, Publication of an affidavit, there’s nothing wrong with that. It is a public document. But a publication of a submission, my learned friend just now not denied that it was leak out and must be leak out from him.

Let’s have…

YA:    Since just now you indicate that you want to see me in chamber, so can I see both parties in chamber?

KS:    Yes.
[9.29 a.m.] Stand down.

[9.32 a.m.] Pihak-pihak masuk ke Kamar Hakim.
[9.42 a.m.] Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.

[9.47 a.m.]
YA:     With regard to the issue brought by the defence team just now, I only have this to say: the trial is ongoing therefore I remind parties not to do anything that could hinder the smooth running of this trial. Anything done is amount to contempt, those responsible will face it. That’s all.

KS:    Much obliged.

MY:    Much obliged.

MY:    Dengan izin, YA. My Lord, the first application by the prosecution is to urge your Lordship to review your ruling at the end of the trial within a trial with regard to the admissibility of the evidence pertaining to exhibits collected in the cell and evidence of Puan Aidora, the chemist.

My Lord, authorities has held that in order to decide whether there is basis to exclude any evidence the court can look at the evidence both in the trial within a trial and later the evidence adduced during the substantive trial. And the onus is on the party seeking exclusion to prove on the balance of probabilities.

The existence of a basis, for that may I just read some passage from Hanafi b. Mat Hassan v PP [2006] 4 MLJ 134, paragraph 74 at page 170. If I may read my Lord,

“Be that as it may, the party that is seeking to have evidence excluded in the exercise of the discretion of the court has the onus of showing, on the balance of probabilities, that the discretion should be exercised in its favor.”

Two cases were cited, PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis and [] v PP. So, if your Lordship remembers the particular page in PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis is page 412. What they are saying is that the defence has the onus on the standard of civil case, i.e. balance of probabilities and they have to show more than likely that the basis exist. It is like 51% over 49%. [].

My Lord, as far as the cases goes whether or not the court has the power to review, we have in our bundle 6 cases.

The first case is R v Watson [1980] 2 All ER 293. The question post to the court can be found at page 294, paragraph F. It says,

“The first ground of appeal [] the judge was wrong in law in holding that he had no power to rule on the admissibility of evidence at the end of the prosecution case because he had rule on it in trial within a trial even though there were relevant matters that case in light in the trial that had not done so in the trial within a trial.”

This case concerned caution statement. If I can invite your Lordship to page 293, the headnotes where the Court of Appeal had to say,

“Because a judge retains controls over the evidence to be submitted to the jury throughout a trial, he is not precluded, by the fact that he has already ruled at a trial within a trial in the jury’s absence that a written statement by the accused is admissible in evidence as being voluntary, from reconsidering that a ruling at a later stage of the trial if further evidence emerges which is relevant to the voluntary character of the statement.”

So it says here if it can show that there are now fresh evidence which may help to show to the court that whether or not there could or could not be a basis then the court can always reconsider and then make an appropriate ruling.

The second case is Dato’ Mokhtar Bin Hashim v PP [1983] 2 MLJ 233 at page 236, paragraph D on the left, it would appear that the defence team had applied to the court for review of the question of voluntariness of his cautioned statement.

And from paragraph F downwards to the right hand column, the judge did in fact reviewed and still maintain its ruling.

And page 245 of the report again at paragraph D on the left, the court was invited to review by the defence team of Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim the evidence of Sudin and the the evidence of Datin Norsiah in the light of another new evidence in the form of testimony of Batumallai, ASP Ibrahim and the testimony of YB Mohd Salleh and the RTM film.

Of course on the right hand column the [] paragraph, it would seem that the court after having review the ruling says that,

“In my view the so call new evidence does not alter the situation.”

Meaning, basically it maintains the ruling.

No.3 in the list is PP v Ng Lai Huat & Ors [110] 2 MLJ 427. This is with regard to the admissibility of a certain conversations which my learned friend En. Karpal and En. Shafee Abdullah submitted to be hearsay and should not be admitted. It starts from page 428 paragraph G-I on the right hand column but I would just read page 429 left column the top paragraph. If I can read my Lord,

“I heard briefing submissions made by learned defence counsel Encik Karpal Singh, Encik Shafee Abdullah and the learned DPP Encik Jalaluddin Saleh, at the end of which, after due consideration of the brief submissions made, I

ruled that the utterances in respect of the demands made were admissible as I was of the opinion at that time, that the facts contained in the utterances in respect of demands made by Jimmy Chua to PW13 in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution had been shown to be logically relevant under s 10 of the Evidence Act 1950.”

But later the judge reconsidered his ruling at page 430, paragraph F left column,

“I have dealt here at length with the basic principle of hearsay evidence because I am of the view that the demands made by Jimmy Chua to PW13 formed the superstructure of the prosecution’s case. I was wrong to admit the evidence of PW13 in relation to Jimmy Chua’s purported demands in the early part of the prosecution stage. I therefore reverse my earlier ruling on this point and rule that those purported demands are inadmissible for being hearsay.”

This is one case where the ruling was reconsidered by the judge own his own motion, not because there is new evidence emerges. Because he thinks that he could have erred in relying the principle of law applicable to the factual


Then we have the case of R v Allen  [1992] Cri LR 297. We can see what was held there at page 298,

“Held, dismissing the appeal, the judge had a discretion whether to readmit the evidence and had exercised it correctly”

If I may invite your Lordship to the commentary there,
“Commentary: This is an unusual case. The judge took the view that the question put to the officer in cross-examination (which concerned an alleged conversation about the turning-out of the accused’s pockets) was unfair in that the officer was left in the position where he had to say “There was indeed a conversation but this was not it.” It would have left the jury with a misleading impression had the prosecution version of the conversation not been out, notwithstanding the judge’s earlier decision to exercise his discretion against admitting it because the safeguards against verballing in Code C has been broken (though this is often a relevant consideration) but the extent to which the admission of the evidence would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. In this case the balance of fairness shifted during the trial, and the judge was entitled to reconsider his ruling. [D.J.B.]”

And the last case is R v Hassan [1995] Crim LR 404. The same thing the judge reconsidered his ruling. The relevant page will be page 405. Whether or not the judge has a power to review his ruling is there, either because the judge thinks there are new evidence emerging which may change or alter the character of the evidence that it had before that or before the ruling was made or because the judge is of the view that he may have erred in the application of the


YA, with regard to the first basis of the review, emergence of new evidence, we are saying we have now call in the substantive trial both the IO and the arresting officer. The IO’s and this officer’s evidence would conclusively prove that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s arrest was legal and lawful and that he was informed of the ground of his arrest.

It was the evidence of Supt. Taufik that warrant of arrest was served and acknowledged by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim and in fact he signed it at the back there. This document, the warrant of arrest now that we have the original which we don’t have for some reason during the trial within a trial, we have it then during the substantive trial and prove it. We produced the original, we showed to the court where Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim signed. And Taufik said he read what was stated in the warrant of arrest. And what was stated in the warrant of arrest was substantially the charge.

This evidence apart from suggestion by my learned friend that did not inform the ground of arrest to Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was never disputed, not challenged. My Lord, it is trite law that if you don’t challenge, you don’t dispute, you accept. And you don’t challenge it simply means you cannot dispute and you accept. Now what is accepted is that he was read the warrant of arrest and he acknowledges it. Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim through his counsel did not challenge that it was his signature there at the back of the warrant.

The case is not in my bundle my Lord which says if you don’t challenge you accept is the case of Chua Beow Huat v PP [1970] 2 MLJ 29 and Wong Swee Chin v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 212.

Then we have the oral testimony of the IO. First, he said “I faxed a letter asking Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim to surrender himself on 16.07.2008 at 2.00 p.m.” And in that letter it was mentioned that he had applied for the warrant of arrest. This was never disputed, P86. Then he said he has the warrant given to Taufik to be executed. And before the recording of his statement was done, again he told Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim in this term – that there was a report,

Travers Report by Saiful Bukhari who had alleged that he was sodomised by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim between 3.00-4.00 p.m.at 11-5-1 Kondominium Desa Damansara. This was never disputed.

YA, we made, I mean we try to tender the statement recorded pursuant to S.112, only the first 4 pages. I’m not sure whether YA would agree to have that part of the statement marked as exhibit. I know the law says that 112 statements is no admissible except for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching but here what was being admitted is not the statement. It is just before the statement was recorded. Be that as it may, before we showed the IO the statement he had already testified with regard to what he told Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

KS:    I wish to interrupt my learned friend. But it is marked as an ID. If it is an ID, it can’t be referred to in submission. It is trite law. It is not an exhibit. []

MY:    YA, I mean that is the purpose of my submission, to have it converted to exhibit because..but I’m aware of the law.

YA:    Proceed.

MY:     Now this positive assertion by this witnesses and if your Lordship want to compare what happened during the trial within a trial, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim did not denied. Here, he did not challenge it. During the cross-examination he did not denied that he was informed by the IO before the recording of the statement. Neither he denied he was served and signed the warrant of arrest.

Now, if we were to sit as a civil court having the defence to prove on the balance of probability that he was not informed of the ground of arrest obviously they have failed.  In fact this is one instance where in the civil case the defence can submit there is no case to answer, they don’t have to adduce evidence. Whether you called the evidence rebuttal or defence, they don’t have to. Because even by their own evidence they have not been able to show to the court that they have material which the court can comfortably act upon in order for the court to “Yes, you were not informed” by their own concession during trial within a trial.  Now the positive evidence unchallenged would put all doubt to rest that he was in fact informed of the warrant of arrest.

How much he was informed, may I refer again to the case of Chong Kim Loy v Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Anor [1989] 3 MLJ 121. I may invite your Lordship to page 122, holding no.6,

“For the purposes of the first limb of art 5(1) of the Constitution, all that an arrested person is entitled to demand for is to be informed, at the earliest possible moment, not in detail and not necessarily in strict legal terminology, but only in general terms, by virtue of what power he is being arrested and of the grounds of his arrest. But enough must be made known to him to afford him the opportunity of giving an explanation of any misunderstanding or of calling attention to other persons for whom he may have been mistaken with the result that further inquiries may save him from the consequences of a false accusation.”

In fact this is what Cristie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573 [] is all about. It says when you arrest a person you must tell him why so that he can say, for example if you say he is involed in a murder of Ahmad on a certain date and time, he can say “Look, you are mistaken. I was somewhere else at that time.” So the whole idea telling him in general term what offence he has committed, and when and where is to enable him to explain himself, if he is accused of murder he can say “Look, I was acting in defence.” In fact, at the time of arrest it was the first time an accused is afforded with the opportunity to put up his defence, alibi, explanation and If he could not deny the fact that he did stab somebody but he did it in self-defense.

So that is as far as Chong Kim Loy is concerned, we have satisfied. The prosecution has satisfied that. So if the court is with me that the arrest is lawful then it is only right for your Lordship to reconsider your ruling and say because the arrest is lawful, the subsequent detention is lawful and whatever obtained pursuant to that has not been obtained by unfair or illegal means.

Now, the question may be post is there one or two arrest? If both lawful or one of them is lawful and if one of them is lawful which one of them?

If your Lordship remember, Supt Taufik arrested this accused, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim 200 meters from his house and he was not acting under the instruction of the IO, he was acting under the instruction of Dato’ Bakri. The instruction is, if Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim did not go direct to IPK he must be arrested. It would appear from that statement that Bakri must have known about the existence of the letter faxed by Jude to En. Nair that he is required to be there by 2.00 p.m. It is the basis there. And he was arrested by virtue of S.377B of the Penal Code, a sizable offence.

He said subsequently he was given the warrant and he served it which we think is a mere formality. But supposing that it is not so, there is a second arrest at the instance of the IO and this is what we have to say, Jude testified that on 15.07.2008 not only he applied for warrant of arrest, he also faxed the letter asking Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim to surrender himself by 2.00 p.m. the next day and that he had applied for a warrant of arrest. And it is in his testimony he said at the time when he applied for the warrant of arrest he has reasonable suspicion under S.23 of Criminal Procedure Code in that he had the report, he had the statement of the complainant, he had viewed the CCTV, he had the medical report, and he had the chemist report by Dr. Seah that those materials are more sufficient for him to form an opinion that he has more than reasonable suspicion to effect an arrest under S.377B against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, in which he did.

When Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was brought to IPK whether legally or illegally he had the warrant of arrest executed. He had the warrant executed and the warrant was explained and then before the recording of the statement he was again informed Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. If this constitute the second arrest, then this second arrest is lawful and the detention of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was made pursuant to this arrest. It is our contention both are lawful.

But in the event there was two arrests and the first one is unlawful, the second is lawful.

In the case of Ooi Ah Pua v OC Criminal Investigation, Kedah Perlis [1975] 2 MLJ 198 where the complaint there to the court is whether or not when the person is denied his right to counsel, he can have his detention to be declared null and void. Before the Federal Court, the Federal Court says there is no issue before the court. The issue is whether or not he was informed of the ground of arrest. If I may read the particular paragraph at page 201 starting from para H on the left, this is what the Federal Court has to say,

“So much therefore regarding the issue as framed by Mr. Karpal Singh. But with all due respect, I do not think that that is the real issue before the learned judge and before us. This being an application under section 365 of the

Criminal Procedure Code and under article 5(2) of the Constitution, with respect I agree with Encik Lamin for the respondent that the real issue is a simple one, namely this, whether or not Ooi was lawfully detained. If so, the court should not release him; if not, the court should release him. As to this the affidavit evidence is very clear. There was an armed robbery, a seizable offence, and there was a reasonable suspicion that Ooi was concerned in that offence, and Inspector Amiruddin not only had power to arrest him without a warrant (section 23(i)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code), he was also under a duty to do so. By the time this application was filed on January 5, 1975, Ooi had been detained by order of a magistrate, and so there was no question of his detention being unlawful.”

So we are saying if the court says the first arrest was unlawful, by the time the ruling is obtained he was already arrested pursuant to a valid legal powers for a sizable offence for which the IO had reasonable suspicion. It is true my

Lord it was not denied by En. Judy that there was communication between him and En. Nair but that was before he decided that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was a suspect. By 15.07.2008, he said that “Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was a suspect, I had all the materials and I applied for the warrant of arrest”.

So whatever communication or understanding between the parties has superseded by this event, hence the faxed letter, the letter faxed to En Nair. As far as s 15 is concern, it doesn’t matter how the arrest is effected, one of it when the suspect submitted himself. If Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim had any intention to go to IPK that day obviously then he was submitting himself to a notification by the IO that he was going to arrest him. So it doesn’t make the communication between the IO and En. Nair did not make the arrest less than lawful.

That is the first part of the submission, emergence of new evidence.

Now I go to the second basis, the Ng Lai Huat basis. While in Ng Lai Huat the judge on his own motion reconsiders it because he thought he was wrong, here the prosecution is urging your Lordship to review because we perceived that there is a misapplication of the principle of the law when your Lordship make the ruling.

YA, it all started with Kuruma where the Privy Council held that the test of admissibility is relevancy. If evidence is relevant then it must be admissible no matter how it was obtained. Subsequently in 1980 the House of Lords in R v

Sang modified it a little bit.

If I may refer your Lordship to R v Sang [1980] AC 402 to what the House of Lords held is this at page 431 paragraph A,

““Does a trial judge have a discretion to refuse to allow evidence-being evidence other than evidence of admission-to be given in any circumstances in which such evidence is relevant and of more than minimal probative value”.

The House of Lords says there are 2 situations when the court can exercise discretion to exclude admissible evidence. No.1, where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. No.2, a judge has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. Your Lordship has no choice, you cannot exclude it just because it was obtained by improper or unfair means except save with regard to admission, confession, and evidence obtained from the accused after commission of offence. This is something like R v Payne. The court is not concerned with how the evidence is obtained, meaning other than these three categories of evidence the court shouldn’t be concerned how it was obtained. So long as it its relevant, it is admissible.

Now, no.1 is the facts of our case shows that there was an admission? This is not an admission. Is it a confession? No, it’s not a confession. Is it obtained from the accused himself? No. In another part of the judgment it says if of the search from his premises but if it was obtained from the accused himself or his premises then it must be confessionary in nature. Confession is something that by itself would show the guilt of the accused without more.

What is the evidence that we collected among other thing which is relevant was toothbrush, Good Morning towel and the bottle. Was it collected from the accused? It wasn’t. Was it collected from his premises? They were not. The evidence itself would show that this is not the time where the court has a discretion to exclude.  The nature of the evidence itself doesn’t fall within the category of evidence that this Honorable court has a discretion to exclude.

If I may read page 435 of the judgment, paragraph B-H. Actually it starts from the previous page but if I can just read the second paragraph of page 435,

“It is interesting in this connection to observe that the only case that has been brought to your Lordship’s attention in which an appellate court has actually excluded evidence on the ground that it had been unfairly obtained (Reg. v .

Payne [1963] 1 W.L.R. 637) would appear to fall into this category the defendant, charged with drunken driving, had been induced to submit himself to examination by a doctor to see if he was suffering from any illness or disability, upon the understanding that the doctor would not examine him for the purpose of seeing whether he were fit to drive.  The doctor in fact gave evidence of the defendant’s unfitness to drive based upon the symptoms and behavior in the course of that examination. The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction on the ground that the trial judge ought to have exercised his discretion to exclude the doctor’s evidence. This again, as it seems to me, is analogous to unfairly inducing a defendant to confess to an offence, and the short judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal is clearly based upon the maxim nemo debet prodere se ipsum.”

“In no other case to which your Lordships’ attention has been drawn has either the Court of Criminal Appeal or the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal upon the ground that either magistrates in summary proceedings or the judge in a trial upon indictment ought to have exercised a discretion to exclude admissible evidence upon the ground that it had been obtained unfairly or by trickery or in some other way that is morally reprehensible; though they cover a wide gamut of apparent improprieties from illegal searches.”

The court has never interfered when the Magistrate or the High Court admitted the evidence on the ground that it was obtained unfairly and by unlawful means. This ground is not sufficient to have the evidence excluded.

“Nevertheless it has to be recognized that there is an unbroken series of dicta in judgments of appellate courts to the effect that thre is a judicial discretion to exclude admissible evidence which has been “obtained” unfairly or trickery or oppressively, although except in R  v Payne [1963] 1 W.L.R. 637, here never has been a case in which those courts have come across conduct so unfair, so tricky or so oppressive as to justify them in holding that the

discretion ought to have been exercised in favour of exclusion.”

The next following sentence is important, YA.

“In every one of the cases to which your Lordships have been referred where such dicta appear, the source from which the evidence sought to be excluded had been obtained has been the defendant himself or (in some of the search cases) premises occupied by him;…”

Either than admission and confession, the evidence must be obtained from the accused or his premises.

“…and the dicta can be traced to a common ancestor in Lord Goddard’s statement in Kuruma v The Queen [1955] A.C. 197 which I have already cited. That statement was not, in my view, ever intended to acknowledge the existence of any wider discretion than to exclude (1) admissible evidence which would probably have a prejudicial influence upon the minds of the jury that would be out of proportion to its true evidential value; and (2) evidence tantamount to a self-incriminatory admission which was obtained from the defendant, after the offence had been committed, by means which would justify a judge in excluding an actual confession which had the like self-incriminating effect.”

My lord, before I read the other part of R v Sang, may I now take your Lordship to the case Ajmer Singh v PP [1987] 2 MLJ 141, a Singapore case where R v Payne was considered. The factual of the case are the same in Ajmeer and R v Payne. Starting from 2nd paragraph of page 6 where R v Payne was reffered to and the short facts were reproduced. Then I go to the fourth paragraph,

“I come now to the submission on lack of consent on the part of the appellant in giving a specimen of his blood to PW1. In R. v. Trump, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant had not given his consent because he gave it in response to a warning to him. But the Court of Appeal also held that “Giving the blood was very close to making an admission…”

I skip that my Lord. Then in the six lines from below, this is what the Singapore court has to say

“But, even assuming that no consent had been given, the appellant would  still have to overcome the hurdle as to whether the evidence amounted to an involuntary confession or admission of a nature that renders the evidence inadmissible. In Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor (1939) 66 IA 66; AIR 1939 PC 47 Lord Atkin said that “A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.”

Here, if there had been any confession or admission, it was merely to the fact that the appellant had an excessive amount of alcohol in his blood and not to the fact that he was unable to control his scooter whilst under the influence of drink.

So in Ajmer he was charged for driving while under the influence. Blood was taken from him without his consent and whether or not that amounted to confession the court had to say nothing, it only shows there is alcohol in his blood. That’s all, his blood.

With regard to the 3 exhibits, zero. it doesn’t come within what Lord Atkin term it to be confession or S.17 term it to be confession. It doesn’t say anything. It merely say that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim must have drink from this bottle, that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim had used this towel, that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim must have used this toothbrush. It does not relate him to the offence. We still have to have to have this hurdle to say that “Look, the DNA here matches the DNA sample found in the sperm cells in the anus.” apart from showing by oral evidence through Saiful that this offence actually took place. So at any rate my Lord, what we are saying not only the evidence collected was not collected from the accused himself or his premises is not confessionary in nature. If it is not, the your Lordship has no discretion to exclude it. Your discretion is not triggered.

If I may now invite your Lordship to the judgment of R v Sang at page 433 with regard to the probative value and the prejudicial effect,

“Recognition that there may be circumstances in which in a jury trial the judge has a discretion to prevent particular kinds of evidence that is admissible from being adduced before the jury, has grown up piecemeal. It appears first in cases arising under proviso (f) of section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, which sets out the circumstances in which an accused may be cross-examined as to his previous convictions or bad character. The relevant cases starting in 1913 with Rex v. Watson (1913) 109 L.T. 335 are conveniently cited in the speech of Lord Hodson in Reg. v. Selvey [1970] A.C. 304, a case in which this House accepted that in such cases the trial judge had a discretion to prevent such cross-examination, notwithstanding that it was strictly admissible under the statute, if he was of opinion that its prejudicial effect upon the jury was likely to outweigh its probative value.”

Then it refers to similar facts. If I may read 434,

“…but in Harris v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] a.c. 694, 707, Viscount Simon, with whose speech the other members of this House agreed, said that the discretion to exclude “similar facts” evidence should be exercised where the “probable effect” (sc. prejudicial to the accused) “would be out of proportion to its true evidential value.

That phrase was borrowed from the speech of Lord Moulton in R v Christie. That was neither a ‘previous conviction’ nor a ‘similar facts’ case, but was one involving evidence of an accusation made in the presence of the accused by the child victim of an alleged indecent assault and the accused’s failure to answer it, from which the prosecution sought to infer an admission by the accused that it was true. Lord Moulton’s statement was not confined to evidence of inferential confessions but was general in its scope and has frequently been cited as applicable in cases of cross-examination as to bad character or previous convictions under the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 and in ‘similar facts’ cases. So I would hold that there has now developed a general rule of practice whereby in a trial by jury the judge has a discretion to exclude evidence which, though technically admissible, would probably have a prejudicial influence on the minds of the jury, which would be out of proportion to its true evidential value.”

KS:    I wish to interrupt. My learned friend has gone through it earlier.

YA:    He has the right.

KS:    He has gone into it earlier.

YA:    Those are last time. This is now. Let him submit.

KS:    Waste of judicial time and taxpayers money.

MY:     “Up to the sentence that I have emphasised there is nothing in this passage to suggest that when Lord Goddard CJ spoke of admissible evidence operating ‘unfairly’ against the accused he intended to refer to any wider aspect of unfairness than the probable prejudicial effect of the evidence on the minds of the jury outweighing its true evidential value…”

With regard to that holding no. 1 what they are saying is this there may evidence which will not prove the charge, similar facts and all other evidence. While technically admissible, the court has to consider whether or not prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.   But that kind of evidence is not the evidence we seek to admit. It doesn’t belong to the same class of bad character, previous convictions or similar facts. It is direct evidence, almost.

It is corroborative in the sense that it confirms. It helps to confirm identity of the perpetrator of the crime not by directly relevant.

So, if I may then just refer to two cases Hanafi b. Mat Hassan v PP [2006] 4 MLJ 134 and Wan Mohd Azman bin Hassan v PP [2010] 4 MLJ 141. But before that YA, in submission we refer to O’Brien [2005] 2 AC 534 at page 16 of that report where it says when you talk about the probative value that the probative value outweigh the prejudicial effect, the evidence we adduced must be so probative, it is so supportive of the fact that we are supposed to prove. In that sense then the discretion does not apply.

The case of Hanafi b. Mat Hassan v PP [2006] 4 MLJ 134, holding no 6. This is where blood specimen was taken from the accused while he was handcuffed. The Court of Appeal in that case at page 136 of the report, holding no. 6 says,

“(6)    The court has no discretion to refuse to admit evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained if it is relevant. Therefore, the evidence relating to the blood sample taken from the accused was admissible as it was relevant even if it was taken without his consent (see para 68).”

The judgment proper is at page 168 paragraph 64.

“(e) The use of the blood sample taken from the accused
[64]    It was the stand of the defence that the blood samples taken from the accused for the purpose of conducting the DNA tests were not taken voluntarily. It was argued that even though no evidence was adduced by the accused on this issue the evidence relating to the blood sample must be excluded in the exercise of the discretion of the court as the available evidence shows that he was handcuffed at the time thereby rendering the taking of the blood sample involuntary.”

And it says on what case the objection was anchored. And at page 169, paragraph 68 the judge says,

“It is therefore clear that the court has no discretion to refuse to admit evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained if it is relevant. This rule applies, inter alia, to cases involving illegal searches, evidence obtained by secret listening devices or by undercover police operations. It also applies to evidence obtained by unfair procedures. Thus in R v Apicella (1986) 82 Cr App R 295, the English Court of Appeal upheld a rape conviction based upon the results of tests carried out on a specimen of body fluid obtained from the accused for medical reasons whilst he was on remand. In AG for Quebec v Begin (1955) SCR 593, it was held that even if a blood sample was obtained from the accused without his consent it is admissible to prove intoxication. It follows that the evidence relating to the blood sample taken from the accused is admissible as it is relevant even if it was taken without his consent.”

The next paragraph where they refer to R v Sang still exclude that if it operates unfairly which phrase same from the judgment to make only this, when the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.

The case of Wan Mohd Azman bin Hassan v PP [2010] 4 MLJ 141is also in point, it is a Federal Court decision at page 150, paragraph 16,

“[16]    Also the propriety of obtaining the evidence with the use of an agent provocateur would not impair the fairness of the trial itself as this passage from Lord Diplock’s judgment in R v Sang [1980] AC 402 suggests. His

Lordship said:

For the fairness of a trial according to law is not all one-sided; it requires that those who are undoubtedly guilty should be convicted as well as that those about whose guilt there is any reasonable doubt should be acquitted. However much the judge may dislike the way in which a particular piece of evidence was obtained before proceedings were commenced, if it is admissible evidence probative of the accused’s guilt it is no part of his judicial function to exclude it for the reasons.

[17]    And Lord Salmon, in the same case stated the same proposition in a more forceful manner when he said:

A man who intends to commit a crime and actually commits it is guilty of the offence whether or not he was persuaded or induced to commit it, no matter by whom. This being the law, it is inconceivable that, in such circumstances, the judge could have a discretion to prevent the Crown from adducing evidence of the accused’s guilt — for this would amount to giving the judge the power of changing or disregarding the law. It would moreover be seriously detrimental to public safety and to law and order, if in such circumstances, the law immunised an accused from conviction.”

And at page 153 under the heading of Similar Facts Evidence, Discovery And The Agent Provocateur’s Evidence, the court was urged to conduct a balancing exercise. So the court says it may apply to similar facts, it may apply to S.27 but it doesn’t apply to agent provocateur. So my submission is that it doesn’t apply to our case.

My learned friend had on occasion cited the case of Goi Ching Ang which is not the authority of our case. Goi Ching Ang is a case of S.27 at the most it may amount to a confession which even R v Sang agreed if that confession is obtained by inducement, threat or promise or by trick the court has the discretion, which is not the case here. []. Goi Ching Ang merely restates the law, nothing more.

Applying the law into the facts, we are saying the arrest was lawful and justified in law. Therefore all evidence was properly and lawfully obtained. In the event the arrest of the Respondent deemed to be illegal and evidence improperly obtained, it does not trigger the exercise of the court’s discretion for the following reasons:
(i)    The evidence is not in the categories envisaged by R v Sang. It is not admission, confession or obtained after commission offence, from the accused himself or his premises. The evidence is not confessionary in nature.
(ii)    Its prejudicial effect if any does not outweigh its probative value. It shows very strongly probative of the Respondent guilt.
(iii)    Its not even a sample taken from accused himself which under normal circumstances can be taken without his consent.

For this, we are referring to s.5 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There was in evidence that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was taken to the hospital to have blood specimens taken. Under the law, we can take hair sample. S.5 of Criminal Procedure Code read together with S.63 of PACE because S.5 says if there is no procedure in Malaysia then we apply the law of England.

We then refer your Lordship to the case of PP v Sanassi [1970] 2 MLJ 198. In Sanassi, the three elections does not originates from here. The three elections was found in the laws of England. By virtue of S.5 of the then Ordinance the court said we applied that law here, the three alternatives so the same thing.

What s.63, we have it in our bundle when it comes to non-intimate samples we can take it without the consent provided that he is in the custody for a sizable offence. Here Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was in custody for that kind of offence.

If I may, tab 12 of my bundle page 1689, the bottom part of the page.

“Other samples
63.     (1) Except as provided by this section, a non-intimate sample may not be taken from a person without the appropriate consent.”
(2) consent to the taking of a non-intimate sample must be given in writing.
(2A) A non-intimate sample may be taken from a person without the appropriate consent if two conditions are satisfied.
(2B) The first is that the person is in police detention in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence.
(2C) The second is that –
(a)    He has not had a non-intimate sample of the same type and from the same part of the body taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police, or
(b)    He has had such a sample taken but it provided insufficient.”

So as far as the prosecution is concerned when he was taken to the hospital that night both the conditions have been satisfied for only non-intimate sample. For intimate sample, that is a different matter. We will leave it for submission. But in this particular case we didn’t take anything from him. Zero. No sample was taken from this person. If the law can recognized that we can take it without his consent, what more this obtaining of contact DNA or traced DNA from the bottle, from the towel, and from the toothbrush.

It was our submission that the evidence pertaining to the collection of the exhibit in the lock-up cell and the result of the DNA test should be admitted. It is the right and lawful thing to do. I rest my submission.

YA:    The second application?

MY:     Can we stand down for 10-15 minutes before I start with my second application?

YA:    So we proceed sekali?

MY:    Yes, I’ll make application and my learned friend will respond to both applications.

YA:    Stand down for a while.

[10.52 a.m.] Stand down.

[11.28 a.m.]
SN:    YA, Mr. Karpal is now going to the other court, but we have no problem with the submission to proceed.

MY:    Dengan izin, YA. This is an application by the Public Prosecutor for an order that this Honorable Court direct the respondent, who is the accused in case to give a non-intimate or intimate sample of himself (the accused), as this Honorable Court deems fit, with a view for this court to compare the DNA of the accused with the DNA sourced from semen found in high rectal swab and low rectal swab obtained from the anus of SP1 and given the nomenclature ‘male Y’ by the chemist (SP5).

We make this application based on Section 73 and Section 165 either individually or read together.
Section 73, if I may read in our bundle, tab 2:
“(1)    In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal, admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been written or made by that person, may be compared by a witness or by the court with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any purpose.
(2)    The court may direct any person present in court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by that

(3)    This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.”

Before we proceed on why Section 73 may be used for that purpose, YA, may I just say that Section 73 is a provision that enable the court to direct any person, and any person as we go to the authorities later, includes the accused present in the court to give specimens, handwriting or finger impression. Section 73 does not give the power to the court to compel the accused to give the specimen or the finger impression. The powers under Section 73 is invoked only when the court feels it is necessary in the interest of justice to make such comparison for the purpose of coming to a conclusion of fact along with other evidences.

In this case, we have the evidence of Saiful and few other evidences which may point to the accused but the presence of the semens of the anus if which compared may have the court for the purpose of coming to a conclusion of fact along with other evidence. Whenever the accused is directed to either give [], he may decline because of the principle that an accused cannot be a witness against himself but it can be taken or seized from him.

But for this purpose YA, may I invite you to tab 14 page 1316 onwards, Sarkar’s Commentaries on Evidence:
“In another group of cases it was held that the words “to be a witness against himself” should be given a liberal interpretation and that under a search warrant or any other kindred process of law, documents or articles or any other incriminating evidence can be seized from the custody of the person of the accused by force against his will, such as stolen articles, blood-stained clothes etc, but he cannot be compelled to produce them himself. For the same reason, an accused person can be taken to a doctor for the examination of injuries on his body so as to ascertain whether he could not have participated in an occurrence. He can also be taken to an identification parade to enable the prosecution witnesses to observe his physical features with a view to identify him. The taking of thumb impression or signature of the accused does not stand on a different footing from the seizure of documents or articles or other facts of evidence from the person of the accused. Though he cannot be compelled to produce such evidence, it can be taken or seized from him.

In the same way, it has been held that taking the finger impression of the accused under the magistrate’s order under the Identification of Prisoners Act is not violation of Article 20(3). The principle of such decisions is that the constitutional inhibition prohibits compulsion or force in obtaining oral or written testimony. But truth is not endangered where the compulsion is used for the exhibition of the body or of any identifying marks on it, for purposes of comparisons with evidence produced in the trial. Similarly, the finger prints, foot prints, palm prints, photographs of the accused, for purpose of comparison with those found at the scene of the crime do not lose their probative character whether they have been obtained voluntarily or involuntarily. In principle resort to compulsion requiring the accused to exhibit his body for purposes of establishing the identity is not objectionable, because by doing so he is not being bound to give false testimony. In fact he does not testify at all and the physical facts which are notice speak for themselves. The permissibility of identification by finger, palm and foot prints and the taking of the accused’s pictures after arrest, blood and urine test, use of emetic stomach pump or similar device for extracting ornaments swallowed etc. requiring suspect or accused to wear or trying on particular apparel or requiring defendant in a criminal case to exhibit himself or perform physical acts during trial and in the presence of the jury are not hit by the immunity conferred by Art 20(3). Even if it is assumed that the accused’s thumb impression was taken by the police for comparison by compulsion or use of force.”

Page 1317:-

“ It was thought that the exhaustive judgment in Sharma’s case as to the meaning of the words “to be a witness against himself” will settle the law as to the limits of the protection under art 20(3) but that hope was soon dispelled as on the question whether a direction on the accused to give his finger impression or specimen writing, or to compel him to give such impression or writing, infringed art 20(3), the different High Courts interpreted Sharma’s case in different ways and in a few case two benches of the same High Court came to different conclusion. There was therefore a confusion of law as to what the expression to be a witness against himself meant or what constituted violation of art 20(3).”

Page 1318:-

“The Supreme Court by a majority held that:-
3.    Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of body by way of identification are not included in the expression ‘to be a witness’ in art 20(3). It must be assumed that the constitution makers were aware of section 73 Evidence Act or ss 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Axr, 33.
5. The majority of eight judges held that to be a witness means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts, by means of oral statements or statements in writing by a person who has personal knowledge of the facts to be communicated to a court or to a person holding an enquiry or investigation. But mere production of some material evidence whether documentary or otherwise which is not his statement conveying his personal knowledge relating to the charge against him does not come within the expression ‘to be a witness.”

Page 1319:-

“Under the Supreme Court decision, however giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression to be a witness in art 20(3). In other words, when an accused who is asked to give his finger impression does not voluntarily obey the order he may be compelled to do so and it would not be an infringement of art 20(3). Further, s 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Act authorizes a magistrate to allow measurements or photographs to be taken if he is satisfied that it is expedient for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under Criminal Procedure Court to do so. The principle of Supreme Court decision appears to be that finger or palm expressions or any mark on scar on the body is a fact of evidence which the accused carries on his body and to force him to display such evidence for purpose of identification is not included in the expression ‘to be a witness’ and does not therefore infringe art 20(3). As observed  by the Supreme Court: “When an accused person is called upon by the court or any other authorities holding an investigation to give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, h is not giving any testimony of the nature of a personal testimony. The statement or refuse to make any statement but his finger impression or handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character”.

As already observed, para 2 of sec 73 unquestionably authorizes the court to direct the accused to give specimen writing or finger impression but it appears that directing an accused to give his finger impression under sec 73 has been equated by the Supreme Court in S v Kathi Kalu, with calling up on him to give specimen writing. There is however a clear distinction between the two. If a direction to give finger impression is met with refusal, it is permissible under the law to compel the accused to give it. In this operation the accused remains passive and it is the person taking the impression who does an act. But when the accused refuses to give specimen writing, it is not possible to get it from him as to write is to do “a positive volitional evidentiary act” and unless he is willing to co-operate, he can never be made to write”.

Page 1320:-

“The following observations of that most eminent American Judge Mr. Justice Holmes in Holt v US are pertinent and shed much light:-
“Another observation is based upon an extravagant extension of the 5th amendment of the American constitution. A question arose as to whether the blouse belonged to the prisoner. A witness testified that the prisoner put it on and it fitted him. It is objected that he did this under the same duress that made his statement inadmissible and that it should be excluded for the same reasons.

But the prohibitions of compelling a man in a criminal court to be witness against himself is a prohibitions of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when

it may be material. The objecting in principle would forbid a jury to look at a prisoner and compare his features with a photograph in proof. Moreover, we need not consider how far a court would go in compelling a man in exhibiting himself. For when he is exhibited whether voluntarily or by order, and even if the order goes too far, the evidence if material is competent.”

In several other American cases, it has been held that the prohibition against compelling an accused person to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of coercion or physical or moral compulsion to extort oral or written communications and not of exposure of his body or the taking of finger impression or photograph for the purpose of identification.”

Now, YA, from the reading of this commentary it is obvious that your Lordship to not do is to ask him to surrender the sample but the court can order someone else to take the sample from him because the provision with regard to a person not to be a witness only applies to oral communication and anything in writing from him and not otherwise.

The question is why are we relying on sec 73? From specimens of finger impressions, expert can determine the author of a particular writing or the person who handled any particular object thus [] the perpetrator of a crime.

Similarly, DNA profile helps to identify the perpetrator of a crime, but if I may invite you to para 26 at page 12 of our submission, page 12:-

[26] In the first chapter of his book under the heading – Introduction to criminal DNA, Andrei Semikhodskii wrote:
“Solving a crime is a difficult task. The challenge faced by criminal investigator, though simple, is not trivial – correctly to identify the perpetrator and bring him/her to justice. This can be achieved in a number of ways, by examining eyewitness accounts and physical evidence, DNA evidence has possibly the highest probative value of all, on par with fingerprints evidence in identifying an individual.”

At para 20, page 11:-

[20] “In legal practice, examination of DNA has two major applications – non criminal and forensic applications. The main difference between forensic and non-criminal DNA analysis is the purpose of testing. The purpose of forensic DNA testing is to identify whether a crime scene sample matches a DNA from the suspect.”

My Lord, it would appear then, that a body sample taken from suspect or accused from which DNA profile can be obtain come from the same class of evidence of specimens of handwriting, finger prints impression or urine.

So section 73 should then be construed to extent and to exclude bodily sample whether intimate or non intimate.

We also relying on sec 165, tab 3 of our bundle. Section 165, YA [] invoked by this Honorable Court with the object to discover, to obtain proper fruit of relevant facts. So what are relevant facts in this case? Whether or not the sperm cells, the DNA had been obtained to match DNA of the accused? Court must invoke his power to give truth to both parties and justice is to be done. Now, if I may invite you to our written submission at page 8:-

[11] It was commented at page 2488 in Sarkar’s Law of evidence on the principle and scope of sec 165 of the Evidence Act that “this is a very important section. The judge may exercise all the privileges and powers which he has under the Act or any statute of interrogating witnesses and requiring the production of evidence and yet they may be insufficient to elicit the truth or to get all the facts necessary for a proper decision. The chief function of a judge is to see that justice is done between parties, and a too rigid adherence to set rules may sometimes embarrass the judge in performance of his duties and defeat the ends of justice.

At page 9:-

[12] It was also said at p 2489 that “The position of a judge is not that of a moderator between contestants in a game with no inclination to interfere till the violation of its rules. He has a much higher duty to perform. He has to see not only the proceedings are conducted strictly according to law, but to administer justice and to find out the truth. He must therefore according play an active part and it is not only his right but it is his duty to ask the witness any question in any manner, the answer to which in his opinion would aid in the discovery of truth”.

[13] It had also been said that “Counsel seek only for their client’s success; but the judge must watch that justice triumphs”. The object of the exercise of this power of interrogation must be to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts”. With this object, the judge may also direct the production of any document or thing.”

Page 10:-

[15] In this case we have the evidence of the complainant, SP1 that he was sodomised by the accused. It was in evidence that ejaculation took place. SP1 had informed various persons immediately after the incident. SP1 gave a clear and vivid description as to how he was sodomised to Dr. Razuin who took down his history at HKL. All these facts have not been seriously challenged by the defence.

[16] As a result of the medical examination of SP1, the swabs taken from the anus of the complainant.  Both the swabs were analyzed by the chemist, SP5 and it was found to contain semen of a person known as ‘Male Y’.

[18] In fact, the prosecution had submitted earlier before this Honorable Court in one of the numerous interlocutory applications filed by the accused that the existence of semen in the anus of a complainant would show conclusively that anal penetration had taken place.

[19] In the course of the investigation, the police managed to secure 3 exhibits left behind by the accused in a cell where he was detained overnight and the sole DNA profile of these exhibits conclusively matched the DNA profile of

Male Y but this Honorable Court had refused to admit these 3 crucial exhibits tendered by the prosecution for purpose of matching.

At page 11:-

[21] In the present case, apart from the oral evidence of the complainant, SP1, we have a DNA profile sourced from semen of a person known as Male Y found in the swabs taken from the anus of the complainant. This is a crime scene sample.

[22] It is not only logical but absolutely sensible for an accused person facing a charge of carnal intercourse against the order of nature, in order to exonerate himself, to voluntary offer his DNA sample for matching with that of the crime scene sample.

At page 12:-

[23] Be that as it may, this Honorable Court is clothed with the power and duty under sections 73 and 165 of the Evidence Act to direct the accused in this case to give either a non-intimate or intimate sample of himself for purpose of matching with the crime scene in order that the truth may be discovered and more importantly that justice is administered according to law.

[25] It is in the interest justice that this application is premised upon that an innocent person must be acquitted and a guilty one be held liable for his crime.

At page 13:-

[27] Pursuant to the above explanation, it is incumbent upon this Honorable Court  to direct the accused herein under Section 73 of the Evidence Act read together with Section 165 of the same act to provide a non-intimate or intimate sample of himself for purpose of comparing with the sample taken from the crime scene.

[28] We could do no better than to hearken to the explanation of author Andrei Semikhodsii that:
“The criminal justice system now relies heavily on DNA-based evidence. All over the world, thousands of people have been convicted of various crimes with the help of DNA evidence, and hundreds of wrongfully convicted people have exonerated. DNA analysis has become an indispensable police tool, as it allows unambiguous identification of the criminal by traces of biological material left at the crime scene and the acquittal of innocent suspects, based on DNA evidence. The importance of this silence but faithful witness in fighting crime cannot be underestimated.”

At page 14:-

[29] It is exactly with this purpose in mind i.e. in discovering the truth that an innocent accused be acquitted and a guilty one be convicted which render the application of section 73 of the Evidence Act to be so cogent and crucial in the circumstances of this case.

YA, Section 73 say you exercise your power when there is dispute. Here, clearly there is dispute of DNA profile in Saiful’s anus, so now we asked to compare. We asked the court to invoke your power under Section 73. My Lord, it is true that there had been no application like this before. But just because no application made before, it doesn’t mean that it cannot be done, or else, sec 73 and 165 would be just a [] of the law. Both the sections are there to serve the purpose. And the purpose is exactly what we [] today.

Conclusion of page 14.

[30] With justice paramount in this case, we respectfully urged this Honorable Court to direct the accused, DSAI to provide a non-intimate or intimate sample of himself, as this Honorable Court deems fit, for the purpose of comparing with the DNA profile of the semen sample found at the crime scene, in this case from high rectal and low rectal swab that taken from the complainant.

Either individually, or read together Sec 73 and 165, give this court such power [] to make order that we pray for.

I’m supposed to take you to certain authorities but the authorities here are those mentioned in the commentaries, but if I may quickly run through, the first case is the case of Nga Tun Hlaing, tab 4 page 115. If I may just read the headnotes:-

“Section 73 specifically directs that any person present in court may be directed to make a finger impression for the purpose of comparing it with any finger impression alleged to have been his. There is no exception made in favor of an accused person. Sec 342 Criminal Procedure Court does not prohibit the taking of the finger impressions from an accused.”

The second case, Emperor v Ramrao Mangesh Burde and Others, tab 5 page 313, the court held:-

“I should only like to add in conclusion that although there is nothing illegal in the accused having been made to write by the police officers of the rank I have referred to, especially when the charge against the accused is one of forgery, as there is nothing either in the Criminal Procedure Court or in the City of Bombay Police Act which prohibits it, it would be generally desirable in the interests of the administration of justice in a criminal trial that for the purposes of comparison the accused should be made to write or to give his finger impression in court under the direction of a Magistrate or a Judge. If the accused refuses to write or to give his finger impression in court, an adverse inference may even be drawn against him in respect of the charge on which he is brought to trial.”

Case number 6, Golam Rahman and others v The King is same with case number 1.

Case number 7, Ram Swarup, if he refuses to comply, whatever condition that invoke should be invoke.

Case number 8, Prakhar Singh & Anor says that to do all this is not something that is objectionable.

Case number 9, Subayya Gounder v Bhoopala Subramaniam, page 002/007:-

“The permissibility of identifications by finger palm and footprints and the taking of accused’s pictures after arrest, blood and urine tests, use of the emetic stomach pump or similar device for extracting ornaments swallowed etc requiring suspect or accused to wear or trying on particular apparel or requiring defendant in criminal case to exhibiting himself or perform physical acts during trial and in presence of jury are not hit by the Immunity conferred by Art 20(3) and do not offend that due process clause”.

Case number 11, Ranjit Ram v State page 456:-

“An order directing an accused person to furnish his fingerprints or specimens does not amount to testimonial compulsion and does not contravene the provisions of art 20(3) of the constitution.”

Case number 12, Pali Ram first page 2nd para:-

“In addition to section 73, there are two other provisions resting on the same principle, namely section 165 of Evidence Act and section 540 Criminal Procedure Court (equivalent to sec 256 of our Criminal Procedure Court). What between them invest the court with wide discretion to call and examine and one as a witness, if it is bona fide of the opinion that his examination is necessary for a just decision of the case.”

Also [read] page 16 of the report:-

“It was argues on behalf of Pali Ram accused…that the power of the court is limited to the extent only where the court itself is of the view that it is necessary for its own purpose to take such writing in order to compare the words or figure alleged to have been written by such person and that this power does not extend to permitting one or the other party before the court to take such writing for the purpose of its evidence or its own use. It was further argued that Section 73, Indian Evidence Act did not entitle the court to assist a party to the proceedings. It entitled the court only to assist itself for a proper conclusion in the interest of justice. I have applied this test to the present case before me. It is true that here it is the prosecution which has made this request. But the observation contained in this ruling cannot be stretched to the extent, the defence wants me to do it. Ex, PW-21/F was stated by Tekchand to be in

Pali Ram’s handwriting when he made statement before the police. In his statement during the committal proceedings he resiled from it. This document is undoubtedly a vital link. It has an important bearing on the case as Pali Ram himself happens to be an accused. In this peculiar situation it becomes necessary to take recourse to the court’s power under sec 73 in the interest of justice and to ask Pali Ram to give specimen handwriting (to have it examined by handwriting expert) and then to decide about it. Under these circumstances, I think it fit to allow the request of the prosecution in this regard”.

So YA, the same applies here. There is dispute that on the allegation, even we have the semen in the anus, and the other party it was not happened that way. So we have obtained the necessary evidence but it was ruled not to be admissible. We have the situation where the evidence was there but for technical reason it was ruled not to be admissible. To satisfy the court to do justice to the witness and the accused; that we made this application. And we would seriously urge the court to consider this application. The principle of section 73 which includes and should extent to DNA evidence to allow us to direct the accused to take necessary sample for the purpose of comparison so that the truth could be discovered. Thanks.

KS:    My Lord, second application made by my learned friend, as conceded by him that it is unprecedented.

YA:    We cannot hear you from behind. You must come here in front because the microphone is here.

KS:    As I stated earlier, the second application is unprecedented, it is considered by my learned friend. My learned friend is going on the presumption that the DNA evidence here is conclusive. What we need is time, to reply in detail to my learned friend’s submission, so that your Lordship would not be in a position []. So could we have until tomorrow, YA?

YA:    Datuk Yusof?

MY:    I have no objection.

YA:    Ok, we start at 9 am tomorrow.
[12.09 p.m.] Adjourn.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 11 Mac 2011 March 15, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Sodomy II.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

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

PP:     Semua hadir
PB:    KS, SN, Ram Karpal, Daruk Param Cumaraswamy (Dato’ CV Prabhakaran, Marissa, Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB:    Zambri Idrus (for complainant)

[9.09 a.m.]

MY:     Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung bicara dengan pemeriksaan balas SP25, Supt. Jude Blacious Pereira. Sebelum rakan saya memulakan pemeriksaan balas saya memohon untuk bertanyakan beberapa soalan kepada saksi ini.

SP25 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

Q:     Semalam kamu beritahu kepada mahkamah yang mulia ini bahawa pada 11.15 pagi 15.07.2008 kamu telah memohon dan mendapatkan waran ke atas Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim di mahkamah Jalan Duta.
A:    Benar

Q:    Apa asas permohonan tersebut?
A:    Asas permohonan adalah berdasarkan siasatan saya yang saya mendapati saya ada reasonable suspicion ke atas Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q:    Syak munasabah apa?
A:    Saya syak munasabah sebab dia melakukan kesalahan di bawah S.377B KK.

Q:    Apa asas kepada syak tersebut?
A:    Asas saya adalah kerana saya merakam percakapan Saiful dan saksi-saksi lain. Selain itu, saya telah terima laporan kimia yang menyatakan semen yang dalam terkandung di dalam swab. Dan ketiga adalah disebabkan adalah saya lihat CCTV images.

Q:    Pada 15.07.2008 selepas dapat waran, adakah kamu memaklumkan niat kamu untuk membuat tangkapan terhadap Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim kepada beliau atau sesiapa?
A:    Ada maklumkan.

Q:    Bagaimana maklumkan?
A:    Saya maklumkan melalui penghantaran satu faks kepada peguambela Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, iaitu En.Nair.

Q:    Secara ringkasnya, apa yang terkandung dalam faks message?
A:    Saya menyatakan dalam surat tersebut bahawa saya minta Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim supaya menyerah diri pada 16.07.2008 jam 2.00 petang ke IPK KL dan saya juga telah nyatakan bahawa kami telah memohon waran tangkap ke atas klien beliau.

Q:    Semasa surat dihantar sudah dapat waran?
A:    Semasa surat dihantar memang sudah dapat waran.

Q:    Dalam surat kamu kata kamu telah memohon?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Ada salinan asal surat itu? Saya tunjuk satu dokumen. Sila baca dan tengok adakah ini surat yang kamu maksudkan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Berapa tarikhnya?
A:    15.07.2008

Q:    Kepada siapa dialamatkan?
A:    Kepada S.N. Nair & Partners, Advocates and Solicitors.

Q:    Apa helaian kedua itu?
A:    Faks penghantaran pada 15.07.2008, 1.05 p.m.

MY:    Saya mohon supaya surat ini ditandakan beserta bukti faks sebagai P87.

P87- Surat yang difakskan oleh Supt. Jude kepada SN Nair berkenaan waran tangkap.

MY:    Itu sahaja soalan saya.
YA:    Yes, cross, KS?

Cross-examination by KS.

Q:     Kelmarin kamu nyatakan sekarang adalah dalam Bahagian Pendakwaan dan Undang-Undang di Bukit Aman?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Semenjak bila?
A:    Sejak 4.10.2001.

Q:    Sebelum itu ada pengalaman yang luas sebagai pegawai penyiasat?
A:    Ya, saya ada pengalaman luas berhubung dengan siasatan.

Q:    Lebih kurang berapa tahun dalam bahagian siasatan?
A:    Dalam 20 tahun.

Q:    Ada menjalani kursus di Kuala Kubu Bahru dan tempat-tempat lain mengenai undang-undang dan siasatan?
A:    Ya, di Kuala Kubu Bahru dan juga maktab polis.

Q:    Pernah jadi pegawai pendakwa di mahkamah?
A:    Ya, pernah.

Q:    Pernah beri keterangan di mahkamah sebelum ini?
A:    Ya, pernah beri keterangan di mahkamah sebelum ini.

Q:    Berapa kali?
A:    Lebih kurang 5-10 kali.

Q:    Di antara 5-10 kali. Ada beri keterangan dalam inkuiri?
A:    Ya, ada beri keterangan dalam inkuiri.

Q:    Satu atau lebih daripada itu?
A:    Sekali sahaja.

Q:    Nyatakan apa inkuiri itu?
A:    Inkuiri itu berhubung dengan SUHAKAM.

Q:    Apa isi kandungan inkuiri itu?
A:    Berhubung penangkapan 5 orang peguambela.

Q:    Boleh memberi butir-butir mengenai tangkapan itu?
A:    Tangkapan ini adalah berhubungkait satu perhimpunan [] di hadapan balai polis Brickfields.

Q:    Berapa orang terlibat dalam perhimpunan itu?
A:    Mengikut siasatan sebanyak 5 orang peguambela ditangkap dalam perhimpunan itu.

Q:    Apa kesalahan?
A:    Berdasarkan siasatan mereka turut hadir bersama-sama dengan beberapa orang  yang berkumpul di hadapan balai polis.

Q:    Itu satu kesalahan?
A:    Ya, satu kesalahan.

Q:    Kesalahan di bawah undang-undang apa?
A:    Di bawah Seksyen 27(3) Akta Polis.

Q:    Bila kejadian ini?
A:    Dalam ingatan saya 05.09.2009.

Q:    Siapa pegawai pemnyiasat dalam kes itu?
A:    ASP Ho.

Q:    Ada main apa-apa peranan dalam siasatan itu?
A:    Saya adalah pegawai yang membuat S.28(2a) di mana saya tidak membenarkan representation.

Q:    Membuat apa?
A:    Membuat urusan berhubung dengan seksyen tersebut yang tidak membenarkan peguambela akses kepada klien-klien mereka.

Q:    Inkuiri ini dijalankan oleh SUHAKAM?
A:    Ya, benar.

Q:    Dalam inquiry itu kamu adalah saksi utama?
A:    Salah seorang saksi utama.

Q:    Dinyatakan bila inkuiri ini diadakan?
A:    Saya tak dapat ingat.

Q:    Lebih kurang tahun lepas?
A:    Tahun lepas, ya.

Q:    Ada beri keterangan di inkuiri itu di bawah sumpah?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Adakah keterangan kamu diterima?
A:    Tidak diterima.

Q:    Kenapa?
A:    Sebab pihak SUHAKAM dapati ada percanggahan dalam keterangan saya.

Q:    Ada apa?
A:    Sedikit percanggahan.

Q:    Sedikit percanggahan. Apa itu?
A:    Ada contradiction,YA.

Q:    Sedikit contradiction, a little bit of contradiction. En. Jude, you are here to tell the truth. [] . Sedikit percanggahan? []. You are under oath. Bukan sedikit percanggahan bukan?
A:    Ya, bukan sedikit.

Q:    Bukan sedikit. Kenapa bohong tadi?
A:    Saya tidak bohong.

Q:    Ada bohong tadi sedikit sekarang sebaliknya. I’m warning you. I don’t like to threaten anyone, but if necessary I’ll do it within the parameters of the law. Bukan sedikit percanggahan, bukan? Percanggahan yang serius?
A:    Percanggahan.

Q:    Percanggahan yang serius?
A:    Yes, serious.

Q:    Why are you telling lies under the oath? One after another. Contradicting yourself here.

MY:    I think you should stop running commentaries. Submit it later.
KS:     It is not a commentary.
YA:    Proceed.

Q:    Dalam inkuiri ada nyatakan tidak bercakap benar?
A:    Bukan saya tidak bercakap benar.

Q:    You tell lies about it?
A:    Saya tidak bohong dalam inkuiri.

Q:    You told the whole truth at the inkuiri?
A:    Saya bercakap benar.

Q:    The whole truth nothing but the truth?
A:    Ya, saya cakap benar.

Q:    Do you know the findings of that enquiry?
YA:     How is that relevant to this case?
KS:     It is relevant. His credibility.
MY:     I’m waiting for the [] whether it is serious matter that the court should allow or not. I don’t know when it’s coming.
KS:    I’m coming to it. His credibity.

Q:    Here’s a copy of the findings of the enquiry. I want you to read it. Look at page 34. Boleh baca isi kandungan dari baris pertama dari muka surat itu starting with “we find…”
A:    [read] We find the the evidence of DSP Jude Pereira totally unsatisfactory. DSP Jude was conciously not telling the truth or suffered from a serious loss of memory. DSP Jude Pereira initially denied interacting with any lawyers [] contradict with direct evidence and the documentary evidence in the form of video footage. [] had no contradiction with the 5 lawyers. Looking the evidence as a whole it seems to be very dependant that DSP Jude Pereira for the purpose of interaction with the 5 lawyers and legal advise for matters of legal procedure.

Q:    Apa yang disebut disana, “DSP JudePereira either consciously was not telling the truth or suffered form a serious [] loss of memory. DSP Jude Pereira initially denied interacting with any lawyers [] contradict with direct evidence and the documentary evidence in the form of video footage. [] had no contradiction with the 5 lawyers.” Adalah keputusan inkuiri itu bahawa Jude Pereira tidak memberi keterangan yang boleh diterima.
A:    Ini adalah pendapat mereka.

Q:    Pendapat oleh siapa?

YA:    He already agreed that is the decision of SUHAKAM.
KS:    I’m telling..could I just ask? I’m coming to the end of this part.

Q:    SUHAKAM is a body set up by Parliament?
A:    Yes.

KS:    We want this report to be marked as an exhibit, page 34. We are putting the whole report.
MY:    At this juncture can this be marked as ID?
KS:     It is a certified copy, YA.
YA:     He is not the maker. But what is important to you is the findings. The findings he already read orally there. And he is not a maker. How to put in as exhibit?
KS:    It can be. It is a certified copy of the report. But if YA is satisfied with what he said…
YA:    Oral evidence is much better.
MY:    []
YA:    Yeah, he read that findings.
KS:.    Okay, fair. I just want to make sure that this document is properly [].

Q:    Kelmarin kamu ada sebut lock-up rules.
A:    Ya, saya ada.

Q:    Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim apabila dia ditangkap hari itu ada 2 tangkapan, bukan?
A:    Satu tangkapan sahaja..

Q:    Bukan dua?
A:    Bukan dua.

Q:    Siapa buat tangkapan itu
A:    Dibuat oleh Supt. Taufik.

Q:    Dengan waran?
A:    Semasa tangakapan dibuat, tiada warrant of arrest.

Q:    Tetapi waran itu wujud, bukan?
A:    Waran itu wujud.

Q:    Waran itu dalam simpanan kamu?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Tiga-tiga salinan?
A:    Ya, benar.

Q:    Adakah En. Taufik megetahui masa itu kamu ada ketiga-tiga salinan waran tangkap itu dalam simpanan kamu?
A:    Saya tidak begitu pasti sama ada dia tahu saya ada simpanan tiga waran itu.

Q:    Siapa mengararahkan dia melakukan tangkapan?
A:    Saya difahamkan kemudian selepas tangkapan bahawa arahan tangkapan diberikan oleh Dato’ Bakri, Dicrector of Criminal Investigation.

Q:    Kenapa dia yang memberi arahan itu?
A:    Saya tak terima arahan secara direct jadi saya tidak tahu kenapa arahan itu…

Q:    Ada satu tangkapan oleh En. Taufik lebih kurang pukul 12.30 p.m. 16.07.2008.
A:    Benar.

Q:    Lagi satu tangkapan dilakukan di IPK KL?
A:    Di IPK KL hanya penyempurnaan warrant of arrest ke atas Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q:    Itu shaja? Tidak ada tangkapan?
A:    Tidak ada.

Q:    Tidak ada tangkapan melalui waran tangkap?
A:    Tangkapan di tempat dia ditangkap kemudian penyerahan waran itu adalah di IPK kemudiannya.

Q:    Oleh siapa?
A:    Oleh Supt. Taufik.

Q:    Ada satu tangkapan sahaja?
A:    Satu tangkapan sahaja.

Q:    Itu lebih kurang pukul berapa?
A:    Penyempurnaan waran itu adalah lebih kurang 2.40 petang.

Q:    2.40 petang 16.07.2008?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Sampai di IPK pukul 2.00 petang, lebih kurang 2.00 petang?
A:    Lebih kurang 2.00 petang.

Q:    Statement direkodkan dr Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim hari itu oleh kamu?
A:    Ya, saya yang rakamkan percakapan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q:    Mulakan pukul berapa recording itu?
A:    2.45 petang.

Q:    Dan selesai?
A:    Selesai 5.45 petang.

Q:    Apabila statement ini direkodkan dari Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, apa status dia, sebagai saspek?
A:    Ya, sebagai saspek.

Q:    Saspek kerana dia telah ditangkap?
A:    Saspek berdasarkan kepada siasatan saya.

Q:    Adakah dia dikurung dalam lokap selepas pukul 6?
A:    Selepas pukul 6 beliau tidak dikurung di dalam lokap.

Q:    Kamu fasih dengan lock-up rules? Familiar with it?
A:    Yes, I’m familiar with it.

Q:    A suspect has to be within or rather in the lock-up from 6.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. the next morning?
YA:     Kita buat dalam Bahasa Malaysia ya, KS.
KS:     My apologies, YA.

Q:    Mengikut peraturan-peraturan lokap, seorang saspek adalah diwajibkan untuk ditempatkan di dalam lokap selepas pukul 6.00 petang sehingga 6.00 pagi keesokan hari.
A:    Mengikut lock-up rules yang saya tahu, seorang tangkapan selepas dimasukkan dalam lokap tidak boleh dikeluarkan untuk sebrang soal siasat dan sebagainya selepas 6.00 petang.

Q:    Tidak boleh dikeluarkan?
A:    Tidak boleh dikeluarkan untuk soal siasat dan sebagainya selepas pukul 6.00 petang.

Q:    Boleh baca lock-up rules itu? Do you have it?
A:    Saya tak mempunyai lock-up rules itu.

Q:    You read it.
A:    Which part?

KS:     You should know.
YA:    Which section you want him to read?
KS:    He is very familiar with it, YA.
SP25:     It’s been a long time, YA.
KS:    Long time? Not very long isn’t it?
YA:     You ask him question you should find out which sections. You lebih tahu lagi.
KS:    He is reading the copy, YA.
RK:     We only have one copy, YA. We’ll make copies for the court’s benefit.
KS:     DPP don’t know either.
MY:    We are aware of that.
KS:    If your Lordship could assist?
YA:    Why should I? I’m just sitting here to listen and decide later on and not now.

SP25:    Can i…?
KS:     You can’t find it?

Q:    Isi kandungan yang berkenaan lock-up rules itu adalah ini: hours of rest, masa untuk berehat bagi seorang saspek di dalam lokap.
A:    Saya tak berapa pasti.

KS:    I’m putting it to you?
YA:     His answer is dia tak pasti. But this is rules,kan? You can submit later. Kan dah ada semua dalam tu.

Q:    P20- Hours of rest.
A:    [read]

Q:    So its hours of rest. Kata lain, seorang saspek tidak boleh dikeluarkan dari lokap selepas 6.00 petang sehingga 6.00 pagi.

YA:     In fact, that is what he said tadi, saspek tak boleh dikeluarkan selepas pukul 6.00 sehingga 6.00 pagi esok.

Q:    Tidak boleh kan? Langsung tidak boleh kerana ini adalah hours of rest?
A:    Ya, benar.

Q:    Kenapa Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim tidak ditempatkan di dalam lokap selepas pukul 6.00 kerana semasa itu dia adalah seorang saspek. Beliau tidak dikurungkan?
A:    Tidak dikurungkan lagi.

Q:    Tetapi ikut lock-up rules dia harus dikurungkan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Jika ikut lock-up rules tidak boleh, bukan?
A:    Ya, tidak boleh dikeluarkan dari lokap.

Q:    Langsung tidak boleh?
A:    Tidak boleh jika dia sudah masuk dalam lokap. Ini dia tidak dimasukkan lagi, YA.

Q:    Tetapi dia seorang saspek, diwajibkan masuk ke dalam lokap selepas pukul 6.00. Bersetuju dengan itu?

SP25:    Boleh saya jelaskan, YA?
YA:    Setuju atau tak dengan cadangan itu?

Q:    Setuju atau tak setuju?
A:    Tak setuju.

Q:    Seorang saspek tidak diwajibkan masuk ke dalam lokap…
A:    Dalam keadaan yang saya siasatn ini pada hari tersebut, tidak setuju.

Q:    Tidak ada apa-apa tentang peraturan 20 lock-up rules tadi?
A:    Tidak, sebab beliau belum dimasukkan ke dalam lokap lagi.

Q:    Adalah diwajibkan dimasukkan?
A:    Kalau ikut lock-up rules, ya.

Q:    Jika ikut lock-up rules dia wajib ditempatkan di dalam lokap?
A:    Ya, benar.

Q:    Benar, bukan? Dalam kes ini…
A:    Saya tidak masukkan dalam lokap.

Q:    Itu bermakna tidak ikut lock-up rules itu? Itu satu kesalahan bagi kamu, bukan?
A:    Saya anggap ini bukan satu kesalahan bagi saya oleh kerana…

Q:    Bukan oleh kerana. Tidak kesalahan? Satu kesalahan bukan?
A:    Bukan.

Q:    Bukan kesalahan?
A:    Bukan.

Q:    Kenapa?
A:    Sebab  beliau ditangkap pada pukul 12.00 lebih, kemudian beliau telah dibawa masuk untuk dirakamkan statement beliau dan seterusnya siasatan masih diteruskan dan kita tak masukkan dia ke dalam lokap sebab kami nak hantar dia untuk pergi ke hospital untuk pemeriksaan. Sebab ini, kita tak masuk Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim dalam lokap sehingga siasaatan pada tarikh tersebut telah habis selepas beliau balik dari hospital. So, beliau belum dimasukkan dalam lokap semasa itu.

Q:    Jadi jangan masukkan saspek dalam lokap dan buat apa yang disukai? Adakah juga ada?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Saya katakan kamu melanggar Peruntukan 20 Peraturan Lokap?
A:    Saya tidak langgar.

Q:    Tidak langgar?
A:    Tidak langgar.

Q:    Kamu siasat laporan oleh saiful yang dibuat pada 28.06.2008?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Adakah dalam masa 28.06.2008 – 16.07.2008 apa-apa cubaan untuk rekodkan statement di bawah S.112 dari Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim?
A:    Ya, ada percubaan dibuat.

Q:    Ada dapat rekodkan statement dari dia?
A:    Tidak dapat.

Q:    Kenapa tidak dapat?
A:    Sebab pada 12.07.2008, kami telah buat percubaan untuk menyempurnakan satu notis di bawah S. 111 Criminal Procedure Code kepada Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim pada 12.07.2008 di mana saya telah pergi ke rumah beliau di Segambut untuk menyempurnakan notis tersebut. Beliau tak ada di kediaman beliau pada masa itu dan saya telah sempurnakan notis tersebut kepada pemandu beliau yang ada dalam kediaman dan peguambela telah di inform berhubung dengan notis yang telah saya serahkan kepada beliau. Bagaimanapun, peguambela telah memberitahu saya beliau tidak dapat dhadir pada 14.07.2008 kerana Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim ada urusan di Pulau Pinang.

Q:    Pada 14.07.2008, En. Nair ada berhubung dengan kamu?
A:    Ya, ada.

Q:    Dan satu masa telah ditetapkan untuk rekod statement S.112 dari Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim pada 16.07.2008?
A:    Ya, benar.

Q:    Itu adalah fahaman di antara kamu dan En. Nair?
A:    Ya, memang benar.

Q:    Tujuan untuk rekod statement di bawah S.112 sebagai saksi? Itu tujuan S.112, bukan?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Bukan untuk tangkap dia? Fahaman adalah untuk dia hadir ke IPK untuk statementnya direkodkan?
A:    Fahaman diantara saya dan peguambelanya.

Q:    Bukan untuk dia ditangkap pada hari itu?
A:    Pada masa itu tidak.

Q:    So apa sebab buat tangkapan itu walaupun ada fahaman antara kamu dan En. Nair?
A:    Kerana pada 15.07.2008 saya mohon warrant of arrest di atas sebab-sebab yang saya terangkan tadi yang mana saya ada reasonable suspicion.

Q:    Reasonable suspicion untuk apa?
A:    Untuk menangkap beliau.

Q:    Kenapa? Kan ada fahaman sebelum itu? 14.07.2008 ada fahaman untuk Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim pergi ke IPK KL untuk member statement kepada kamu.  15.07.2008  kamu buat satu permohonan kepada mahkamah untuk mendapat satu waran tangkap. Kenapa perlu buat?
A:    Berdasarkan siastaan saya, saya ada syak dan seterusnya saya berpendapat adalah lebih baik saya memohon satu warrant of arrest

Q:    Apabila mohon untuk mendapatkan warrant of arrest ini, ada buat satu afidavit?
A:    Tidak, saya hanya buat permohonan kepada Registar.

Q:    Apa sebab yang diberi kepada Registrar ini untuk dikeluarkan warrant of arrest?
A:    Saya buat permohonan untuk dapatkan warrant of arrest dari Registrar.

Q:    Ada salinan permohonan itu dengan kamu sekarang?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Boleh diperolehi?
A:    Saya kena semak dengan mahkamah.

Q:    Apa sebab diberi dalam permohonan itu? []
A:    Saya kena semak permohonan saya. Saya tak ingat.

Q:    Lebih kurang []. Boleh ingat, bukan?
A:    Ya, seperti yang saya cakap berdasarkan kepada siasatan saya dan alasan-alasan telah diberikan.

Q:    Apa alasan? Apa yang boleh diingat?
A:    Saya tak ingat.

Q:    Langsung tak ingat?
A:    Langsung tak ingat.

Q:    Selepas tangkapan, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim dihantar ke hospital?
A:    Bukan selepas tangkapan, selepas rakaman percakapan.

Q:    Ya, semua itu. Selepas semua itu.
A:    Ya.

Q:    Pukul 8?
A:    Pukul 8.50 saya sampai ke hospital bersama-sama beliau.

Q:    DSP Yahya ada dengan kamu masa itu?
A:    Semasa di hospital DSP Yahya tidak hadir.

Q:    Setelah kembali dari hospital ke IPK KL, ada jumpa dengan En. Yahya?
A:    Ya, saya ada jumpa dengan DSP Yahya.

Q:    DSP Yahya ada berikan Good Morning towel, toothbrush dan mineral water bottle, bukan?
A:    Saya tak tahu berhubung dengan barang-barang tersebut.

Q:    Ada beri apa-apa arahan kepada police personnel di lokap selepas Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim ditempatkan di dalam lokap?
A:    Saya tidak ada memberikan arahan apa-apa kepada sesiapa.

Q:    Langsung tidak memberi arahan kepada sesiapa?
A:    Tidak ada.

Q:    Arahan seperti jangan sentuh Good Morning towel, toothbrush dan mineral bottle itu?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Tidak memberi apa-apa arahan kepada police personnel di lokap?
A:    Tidak member apa-apa arahan.

Q:    Ada keterangan bahawa arahan diberikan oleh kamu.
A:    Tiada. Saya tidak ada keterangan apa-apa yang menyatakan saya ada bagi arahan kepada mana-mana anggota di lokap.

Q:    Berbalik kepada 28.06.2008. kamu dipilih sebagai pegawai penyiasat untuk laporan yang dibuat oleh Saiful?
A:    Saya terima arahan daripada Ketua Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Kuala Lumpur.

Q:    Iaitu kamu dipilih sebagai Pegawai Penyiasat?
A:    Ya, untuk kes ini.

Q:    Apa peranan atau tugas-tugas sebagai seorang Pegawai Penyiasat?
A:    Tugas-tugas seorang Pegawai Penyiasat adalah menyiasat kes menurut kepada undang-undang.

Q:    Luas bukan ini?
A:    Memang luas.

Q:    Apa peranan kamu pada 28.06.2008?
A:    Peranan saya adalah sebagai Pegawai Penyiasat kes yang dilaporkan itu, Travers Report 4350/08.

Q:    Ada soal siasat Saiful hari itu? Pada 28.06.2008.
A:    Bukan pada hari itu. Pada 28.06.2008 di hospital saya telah menebual Saiful.

Q:    Menemubual?
A:    Menemubual. Temuduga. Tidak siasat.

Q:    Tidak ada apa-apa statement direkodkan dari dia?
A:    Semasa itu tidak ada statement direkodkan dari dia.

Q:    Di hospital tidak ada?
A:    Di hospital ada rekodkan.

Q:    Di hospital ada, bukan?
A:    Pada 29.06.2008.

Q:    28.06.2008 tidak ada?
A:    Tidak ada.

Q:    Pada 28.06.2008 perbualan sahaja?
A:    Perbualan sahaja pada 28.06.2008 malam.

Q:    Saiful aada diperiksa oleh 3 orang doctor pada hari itu?
A:    Dua orang doctor yang memeriksa Saiful.

Q:    Siapa dia?
A:    Dr. Razali dan Dr. Khairul.

Q:    Bukan 3?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Dr. Siew tidak ada di sana hari itu?
A:    Dr. Siew ada, tetapi dia hanya mengutip swab-swab.

Q:    So dia tidak periksa? Dua doctor periksa dia?
A:    Ya, dua orang doctor telah memeriksa tubuh badan beliau.

Q:    Adakah satu keperluan seorang Pegawai Penyiasat hadir apabila seorang saspek pengadu diperiksa oleh doctor?
A:    Ikut keadaan kes.

Q:    Apa yang luar biasa di dalam kes ini?
A:    Kes ini pada pendapat saya adalah kes penting untuk saya dan saya perlu membuat pemerhatian.

Q:    Pemerhatian?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Kenapa pemerhatian? Tidak ada kepercayaan dengan doctor?
A:    Saya percaya doctor.

Q:    Ada percaya doctor, bukan?
A:    Ada.

Q:    So biasanya seorang Pegawai Polis tidak hadir dalam pemeriksaan itu oleh doctor?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Dalam kes biasa,bukan?
A:    Seperti yang saya beritahu mengikut keadaan. Saya memutuskan untuk hadir di sana.

Q:    Kenapa?
A:    Hanya saya hendak buat pemerhatian sahaja.

Q:    Kenapa walaupun biasa tidak ada satu keperluan untuk itu? Kenapa dalam kes ini?
A:    Sebab saya hendak lihat bahawa..

Q:    Yalah, sebab apa lihat?
A:    Saya hendak lihat semua yang dilakukan oleh doctor supaya saya dapat pengetahuan dan juga apakah setiap doctor itu melakukan untuk siasatan saya.

Q:    Untuk siasatan awak?
A:    Untuk melengkapkan siasatan saya.

Q:    Kamu ada katakan tadi peranan seorang Pegawai Penyiasat tugas-tugas adalah luas.
A:    Benar.

Q:    Adakah satu keperluan untuk siastan di tamatkan sebelum seorang dituduh dalam mahkamah?
A:    Bukan semestinya.

Q:    Biasanya?
A:    Biasanya kita menangkap apabila kita ada reasonable suspicion.

Q:    Bukan reasonable suspicion. Maksud saya adalah ini – sebelum seorang dituduh di mahkamah siasatan harus ditamatkan?
A:    Ya, harus dilengkapkan sebelum seorang dituduh di mahkamah.

Q:    Dan tidak boleh ada sesuatu siasatan selepas itu?
A:    Ya, benar. Ikut kepada keadaan.

Q:    Dalam kes ini adakah apa-apa siasatan apabila kes ini dibicarakan?
A:    Dalam ingatan saya tidak ada selepas dibicarakan.

Q:    Tidak ada buat apa-apa siasatan selepas kes mula dibicarakan di mahkamah ini? Did you investigate in the course of this trial?
A:    Yes, I remember. Ada. Saya telah rakamkan percakapan Dr. Razuin.

Q:    Kenapa? []
A:    Pada 21.02.2011.

Q:    Siapa arahkan kamu merekodkan statement dari Dr. Razuin?
A:    Pihak team pendakwaan.

Q:    Pihak pendakwaan. Siapa khasnya?
A:    Datuk Yusof.

Q:    Biasanya tidak boleh ada satu siasatan bukan apabila perbicaraan dimulakan?
A:    Kebiasaannya tiada.

Q:    Dan dalam hal ini kenapa ada? Satu keperluan?
A:    Saya hanya diarahkan rekod percakapan.

Q:    Tentu ada tujuan, bukan? Apa tujuan untuk merekodkan?
A:    Tujuan adalah untuk saya dapatkan satu sambungan statement berhubungkait dengan borang pro forma sahaja.

Q:    Berhubung borang pro forma?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Apa catatan dalam pro forma itu yang memerlukan satu siasatan disambung?
A:    …

Q:    Kenapa? Kenapa menjalankan siasatan dalam perbicaraan?
A:    Saya tidak tahu kenapa. Saya hanya merakamkan percakapan berhubung pro forma.

Q:    Kenapa? Tentu ada arahan diberi. Untuk apa pergi ke Kota Bahru? Untuk tujuan bukan?

YA:    Yalah. Pergi rakam percakapan Dr. Razuin atas arahan team pendakwa.
KS:    But, what was the reason?
YA:    Berhubung dengan pro forma.

Q:    Jadi apa catatan dalam pro forma itu?
A:    Saya tidak dapat jelaskan itu, YA.

Q:    Saiful dengan pro forma sahaja? Tiada apa-apa yang lain?
A:    Hanya pro forma sahaja. Soalan-soalan berhubungkait dengan pro forma.

Q:    Ini luar biasa, bukan?
A:    Ya, luar biasa.

Q:    Balik kepada 26.06.2008. Ada meneliti isi kandungan laporan yang dibuat oleh Saiful?
A:    Ya, ada.

Q:    Ada meneliti isi kandungan P3 ini dengan baik sebelum memulakan siasatan?
A:    Ya, benar.

Q:    Adakah apa-apa di dalam P3 ini mengenai oral sex?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Langsung tiada?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Cubaan untuk oral sex?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Langsung tiada?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Apa yang disiasat oleh kamu? What were you investigating?
A:    Saya menyiasat kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 377B iaitu meliwat.

Q:    Oral sex bukan liwat, bukan?
A:    Bukan.

Q:    Itu tidak disiasat oleh kamu kerana tiada di dalam P3 ini?
A:    Tiada disiasat.

Q:    Kejadian yang dikatakan dalam P3 ini adalah 26.06.2008.
A:    Benar.

Q:    Apa yang dapat tahu dari Saiful apa yang jadi selepas 26.06.2008 sehingga 28.06.2008 apabial laporan polis ini dibuat. Ada siasat itu, apa yang dibuat oleh beliau?
A:    Ya, beliau telah menghubungi beberapa orang selepas 26.06.2008.

Q:    Apa yang jadi selepas 26.06.2008? Diantara 26.06.2008 hingga 28.06.2008?
A:    Selepas 26.06.2008.

Q:    Dapat tahu apa yang dia buat?
A:    Dia ada mengadu kepada beberapa orang kawan.

Q:    Siapa mereka ini?
A:    Yang saya dapat ingat adalah seorang lelaki nama Rahimi.

Q:    Boleh senaraikan?
A:    Rahimi.

Q:    Satu, Rahimi. Yang kedua?
A:    Yang kedua adalah En. Ezam.

Q:    Ketiga?
A:    Ketiga adalah pakcik beliau sendiri, Yuah.

Q:    Mumtaz? Datuk Mumtaz?

MY:     YA, saya tak pasti sama ada soalan ini wajar sebab En. Saiful sudah pun memberi keterangan, he is the best person to ask about this.
YA:     To see consistency la?
MY:    Whatever he said will be hearsay.
YA:    The truth, it will be hearsay. But for consistency I allow it for the time being.

Q:    Siapa orang lain? Mumtaz ada bukan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Datin Rosmah?
A:    Not very sure. Saya tak berapa pasti. Saya kena semak semula.

Q:    Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Langsung tiada apa-apa?
A:    Itu adalah kejadian sebelum itu.

Q:    Ada pada kejadian sebelum itu?
A:    Sebelum kejadian meliwat pada 26.06.2008.

Q:    Bagi kejadian tidak ada apa-apa?
A:    Selepas kejadian 26.06.2008 tiada.

Q:    Boleh cakap dengan tepat Datin Rosmah tidak ada di senarai?
A:    Ya, saya telah ambil statement beliau.

Q:    Ada ambil statement daripada Datin Rosmah, bukan?
A:    Ya

Q:    Itu bermakna dia terlibat dalam kes ini. Peranan itu lain, tetapi ada. Ada ambil statement Datin Rosmah oleh kerana dia disenaraikan sebagai orang-orang yang ada hubungkait dengan Saiful selepas 26.06.2008. Oleh itu merekodkan statement dari Datin Rosmah.
A:    Pohon rujuk pada ID saya kerana tak pasti sama ada statement ada direkodkan dari Datin Rosmah.

Q:    Ada katakan tadi, ada cakap bukan?
A:    Itu saya tak berapa pasti. Boleh saya semak saya punya ID?

Q:    Ada katakana tadi.

MY:    []
YA:    Yeah, but now he is not very sure. Rujuk ID.

Q:    Now you are not sure?
A:    Ya, not sure…[semak ID]…Ada, YA.

Q:    Bila?
A:    Pada 17.07.2008 statement beliau dirakamkan.

KS:     YA, could we have a short break?
YA:     Panjang lagi ke?
KS:     Quite certain areas.
RK:     Also, we might want to cross on the exhibit. It has not being set up yet. I did say it to my learned friend earlier and he agreed to set it up so that we can refer to it.
YA:     Okay, 15 minit ya.
[10.14 a.m.] Stand down.

[10.38 a.m.] Kes dipanggil semula.

Q:    Jude ada katakan tadi ya, bahawa Saiful ada berjumpa dengan Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak?
A:    Dia berjumpa dengan DS Najib sebelum 26hb.

Q:    Bila itu?
A:    Pada 24hb untuk mengadu berdasarkan beberapa kejadian sebelum itu.

Q:    24hb?
A:    Ya, 24.

Q:    Ada statement direkodkan daripada Dato’ Seri Najib?
A:    Ya, ada.

Q:    DSP Rodwan, apa peranan dia dalam kes ini?
A:    Peranan dia tidak ada dalam kes ini.

Q:    Sebelum atau selepas?
A:    Sebelum kes ini, ada.
Q:    Apa peranan itu?
A:    Beliau telah memberi nasihat apabila Saiful menghubungi beliau pada 24.6.2008.

YA:    We are going to hearsay already. No longer relevancy here.
MY:    Yes, because Saiful had already giving his evidence.
YA:    I have to allow the objection. Please proceed to some other point, Mr. Karpal.

KS:    26hb, ada tak dalam siasatan mengenai Hospital Pusrawi?
A:    26hb tiada.

Q:    28hb?
A:    Ya, sebab Saiful telah pergi ke Hospital Pusrawi sebelum pergi ke HKL.

Q:    Telah diperiksa oleh Dr. Osman?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Ada statement yang direkod daripada Dr. Osman? Dalam siasatan?
A:    Ya, ada.

KS:    YA, my learned friend Nair wants to ask few questions.

SN:    Encik berkhidmat di Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah berapa lama?
A:    Lebih kurang 34 tahun.

Q:    Berapa kes yang telah disiasat?
A:    Banyak kes, tak dapat ingat.

Q:    Lebih kurang?
A:    Sebab saya sebagain IO selama 8 tahun, jadi saya tak dapat ingat. Lebih kurang 500.

Q:    Tapi beri keterangan mahkamah 15 kali sahaja?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Apakah yang berlaku kepada semua siasatan yang dijalankan, lebih kurang 500 kes itu?
YA:    Counsel, I think you should not repeat. This questions telah disentuh oleh Mr. Karpal.

Q:    Bilakah Encik ambil eksibits swab P6A-L daripada HKL?
A:    Pada 29.6.2008, jam 12.35 pagi.

Q:    Dan apa yang berlaku selepas itu?
A:    Selepas saya terima swab-swab tersebut daripada Dr. Siew, saya telah simpan swab-swab itu sendiri sehingga saya pergi ke pejabat dan simpan dalam cabinet besi saya.

Q:    Kabinet besi ini adalah digazettekan?
A:    Ia telah dibekalkan oleh pejabat di IPD Brickfields.

Q:    Di pejabat mana peti besi ini ada?
A:    Di pejabat saya sendiri, YA. Pejabat KBSJD Brickfields.

Q:    Mana lagi ada pesi beti macam ini?
A:    Ada juga di bahagian dan cawangan lain, cabinet besi juga ada.

Q:    Yang boleh dialihkan? Bukan stay?
A:    Bukan.

Q:    Mengikut IGSO,  adakah buku rekod disimpan?
A:    Mengenai apa?

Q:    Eksibit yang dibawa balik?
A:    Ya, ada satu buku daftar di store berhubung dengan eksibit-eksibit yang diterima.

Q:    Dengan eksibit yang Encik Jude simpan di peti besi, ada simpan atau tidak buku rekod?
A:    Saya hanya ambil nombor pendaftaran daripada store, berkaitan dengan eksibit-eksibit yang saya simpan dalam cabinet besi di pejabat saya sendiri.

Q:    Apa nombor pendaftaran store?
A:    53/08.

Q:    Saya pun Pegawai Polis juga dulu. Dalam peraturan polis, kalau ambil number pendftaran daripada store, ada atau tidak barang tersebut letak dalam store dan bukan di tempat lain?
A:    Ya, patut letak dalam store.

Q:    Tapi bagaimana pulak Encik simpan dalam peti besi dalam bilik anda?
A:    Saya merupakan KBSJD dan saya ingin menentukan barang berada dalam selamat, dan saya mengawal barang itu sendiri di pejabat saya.

Q:    Boleh tak Encik Jude nyatakan di IGSO mana mengatakan KBSJD boleh menyimpan sendiri barang eksibit.
A:    Saya buat keputusan untuk simpan sendiri.

Q:    Membuat keputusan tanpa ikut arahan?
A:    Ya, memang.
Q:    So memang ada langgar arahan?
A:    Saya melanggar arahan, tetapi saya memutuskan seperti itu.

Q:    Encik telah terima swab-swab. Apakah bentuk swab2 ini?
A:    Saya percaya ia adalah DNA dan juga kemungkinan kewujudan semen.

Q:    So benar tak swab-swab ini organik?
A:    Benar.

A:    Dan adakah mungkin degradation akan berlaku?

MY:    YA, I don’t think the counsel should ask …
SN:    I will establish it. I did not complete the question yet.
YA:    He’s not an expert in DNA. He is only the IO.
SN:    It’s true YA, but I’m coming to that. I just want to ask whether he knows or he doesn’t know.
YA:    Ok proceed. (To the witness): You tau atau tidak?

A:    Saya tau degradation mungkin berlaku.

Q:    Adakah Dr. Siew memberitahu cara untuk meng’handle’kan eksibit ini?
A:    Ya beliau telah memberitahu saya supaya barang-barang itu dimasukkan dalam freezer.

Q:    Tapi Encik beritahu ia disimpan dalam cabinet besi? Adakah cabinet ini ada freezer dalam itu?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Ini langgar prosedur polis?
A:    Itu arahan Dr. Siew tapi bukan arahan IGSO.

Q:    So IGSO tiada arahan letak dalam freezer?
A:    Tiada. Yes, IGSO ada bagi arahan supaya barang-barang yang saya kutip ini harus di preserve supaya dia tidak hilang bahan-bahan yang perlu kita kekalkan.

Q:    Look at exhibit P6E and F, B4 and B5. Encik telah beri keterangan bahawa Encik telah mengambil eksibit swab dari Dr. Siew dan telah bawa ke pejabat. Encik juga beritahu ada Encik ada buat re-marking, buka seal besar dan buat re-marking, iaitu bukak P27. Ada minta kebenaran kepada sesiapa?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Adakah ini memang ikut prosedur?
A:    Ya, ikut prosedur supaya setiap satu barang ditanda dengan jelas, tidak boleh dicampuradukkan supaya pihak kimia dapat membuat perbandingan dengan baik.

Q:    Ini bukan prosedur IGSO.
A:    Memang ada prosedur IGSO.

Q:    Encik, ini prosedur bab yang mana dalam IGSO?
A:    Boleh saya rujuk IGSO.  Ini adalah terkandung dalam IGSO bahagian D102, para 7 yang mana saya akan bacakan. [read- semua barang kes hendaklah dibungkus berasingan. Barang kes hendaklah dibungkus supaya tidak hilang, bercampur aduk, tumpah, pecah atau tercemar semasa dalam perjalanan. Barang kes hendaklah dimateri, seal dan label dengan jelas. Label pengenalan tambahan dikepilkan dengan barang kes itu untuk pengecaman di mahkamah kemudian. Huruf P tidak boleh digunakan].

Q:    Contoh, kalau kita ambil eksibit A, baju dan seluar. Itu dirampas oleh polis?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Barang itu you kena label dan seal sendiri?
A:    Ya.

Q:    IGSO itu kena mengena dengan barang eksibit yang diambil oleh polis?
A:    Ia tidak nyatakan sebarang barang diambil oleh polis. Ia menyatakan semua barang kes, tidak kira diambil oleh polis atau doktor.

Q:    (Tunjuk P27). Ini diambil oleh doktor. Semua sudah siap sedia, kenapa kena buka?
A:    Permohonan kepada Jabatan Kimia dibuat oleh polis, bukan doktor.

Q:    Tapi semua tanda pun sudah ada di sini, kenapa kena letak balik?
A:    Walaupun nama-nama tersebut telah ditanda dengan angka, bagi saya itu bukanlah tanda, hanya angka.

Q:    So dalam IGSO ada tulis tak barang yang diambil daripada doktor boleh dibuka dan ditanda sendiri?
A:    Tidak disebut.

Q:    Bila Encik buka ini, saya rujuk eksibit P6E and F. Encik ada cek tulisan dan butir?
A:    Saya cek butiran, nama. Dan saya cek seal.

Q:    Itu sahaja?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Dalam IGSO tak sebut apa yang cek?
A:    Tidak ada bagitahu.

Q:    Perlu bukan? Semua harus dicek dengan teliti.
A:    Ya perlu.

Q:    So kalau teliti mesti ada Nampak kan tarikh?
A:    Saya tidak cek kepada tarikh setiap satu bahan.

Q:    Berapa jauh tarikh dengan nama-nama ini?
A:    Saya dah beritahu saya tak cek tarikh.

YA:    Just tengok je lah. Berapa jauh.
A:    Tak jauh YA.

Q:    Apa tarikh di E dulu?
A:    26. 8. 2008.

Q:    Yang F?
A:    26.8.

Q:    8 ke 6?
A:    26. Yang saya lihat di sini 26.8.

Q:    It looks like 6, but it is 8.
A:    Tidak.

Q:    Ok, we leave it to submission. Tarikh 26 June, apa yang berlaku? Report dilaporkan perkara itu bila?
A:    Kejadian berlaku pada 26.

Q:    Kenapa Encik Jude tak nampak perkara ini? Kenapa tak catat kesalahan ini? (merujuk kepada tarikh pada P27)
A:    Saya tak nampak kesilapan yang dilakukan.

Q:    Tak jalan tugas secara betul?
A:    Saya tak setuju.

Q:    Bila Encik bawak eksibit ini kepada Jabatan Kimia?
A:    Saya serah eksibit ini pada 7.55 p.m, 30hb.

Q:    Daripada terima dan hantar ke JK, berapa lama tempoh dalam simpanan Encik?
A:    Lebih kurang 34 jam.

Q:    43 jam lah.  Cuba kira balik.

Q:    Ada tak jumpa Dr. Seah?
A:    Ya, apabila saya serah barang ini.

Q:    Ada tak memberitahu Dr. Seah bila kamu terima swab ini dari HKL?
A:    Dalam ingatan saya tidak beritahu.

Q:    Beritahu cara simpan eksibit ini?
A:    Tidak

Q:    Ada tak Dr. Seah tanya tentang perkara-perkara ini?
A:    Dalam ingatan saya tiada.

SN:    Itu sahaja soalan saya.
RK:    YA, I have a few questions.

Q:    Supt. Jude, ada terima barang-barang untuk dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Barang-barang termasuk adalah swab yang diterima di HKL?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Adakah Encik simpan dalam bilik?
YA:    You are repeating.
RK:    I don’t even start the question.
YA:    No, the first few questions you asked tadi is repeating what. You can ask, but jangan repeat apa yang counsel dah tanya.
RK:    Very well.

Q:    Barang-barang yang diterima, ada 2 set kan, satu swab tersebut, dan satu daripada tempat kejadian.
A:    Benar.

Q:    Berkenaan barang diterima di tempat kejadian, adakah Encik diberi maklumat tersebut daripada pengadu?
A:    Ya, ada.

Q:    Sebab itu barang itu dihantar untuk tujuan DNA profiling?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Seperti yang dicatat atas envelope?
A:    Benar

Q:    Catatan itu catatan Encik sendiri?
A:    Benar.

Q:    I think all the exhibits ada catatat ‘for DNA profiling’.
A:    Atas envelope tiada. Permohonan saya kepada Jabatan Kimia, ada.

Q:    Berkenaan barang yang dijumpai di apartment, di tempat kejadian, itu pada tarikh bila?
A:    30hb

Q:    Bersama pengadu?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Beliau menunjukkan tempat-tempat yang disyaki ada kesan DNA? Sebab itu Encik telah hantar untuk DNA profiling?
A:    Di tempat kejadian, perjumpaan duvet dan Chinese silk carpet.

Q:    No, soalannya, Saiful ada ikut sama dengan you kan? Di sana, Encik ada mengambil nasihat dari Saiful kan, berkenaan tempat-tempat yang disyaki ada DNA, sebab itu hantar ke Jabatan Kimia untuk DNA profiling?
A:    Tidak.

Q:    Then kenapa hantar?
A:    Bukan saya berpandukan apa yang Saiful beritahu, saya berpandukan kepada bila saya jumpa barang itu seperti karpet dan duvet, saya panggil Amidon dari Forensik supaya mengesan sekiranya ada apa kesan di atas barang-barang itu.

Q:    Ye lah, jadi mengikut makluman itu, ada kesan kan, sebab itu kita hantar untuk DNA profiling?
A:    Ya, dia ada kesan atas carpet.

Q:    Barang-barang yang dihantar kepada Jabatan Kimia kepada Dr. Seah Lay Hong, berapa kali jumpa Dr. Seah?
A:    2 kali.

Q:    Untuk item B dan A, B dihantar sebelum A?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Barang yang ditemui di tempat teman wanita Saiful, termasuk satu seluar dalam?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Siapa nama teman wanita itu?
A:    Masa itu bukan teman wanita, tetapi adalah tunang, nama Duratul.

Q:    Awak ada maklumat Saiful ada pergi ke rumah Duratul?
A:    Saya cuma ada information bahawa ada barangan di rumahn tunangnya, yang saya rampas kemudiannya, seluar dalam levis kaler hitam biru.

Q:    Yang disyaki dipakai pada masa kejadian?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Berapa seluar dalam yang disyaki di pakai di tempat kejadian?
A:    Hanya satu.

Q:    You rampas dua kan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Ada seluar dalam yang dirampis yang tidak kena-mengena, tidak digunakan dalam kejadian ini kan?
A:    Dua-dua ada kena mengena.

Q:    Tetapi tidak pakai pada masa yang sama kan? Mesti dipakai pada masa separate kan?
A:    Ya benar.

Q:    So dalam kes ini, you rampas 2 seluar dalam?
A:    Ya.

Q:    So, satu seluar dalam tak terlibat dalam  kejadian ini, setuju atau tidak?
A:    Saya tak setuju.

Q:    Tapi seluar dalam yang kedua yang awak rampas di rumah tunang Saiful dalam wachine machine?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Ada borang serah-menyerah dengan tunang?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Beliau yang serahkan underwear itu kan?
A:    Seluar itu diserahkan oleh Saiful sendiri.

Q:    Tapi tunang yang handle seluar dalam itu kan?
A:    Saya tidak tahu.

Q:    Siapa yang cuci underwear itu?
A:    Saya percaya, mak tunang Saiful

Q:    So ada jumpa mak tunang?
A:    Ada jumpa.

Q:    Siapa nama mak?
A:    Saya tak tahu.

Q:    Dan adakah Encik menerima barang-barang trousers, underwear  selepas dalam siasatan?
A:    YA.

Q:    Barang-barang tersebut disimpan di mana?
A:    Barang-barang tersebut Saiful pakai.

Q:    No, soalan saya disimpan. Barang-barang ini, kamu kutip dari mana?
A:    Rumah Saiful

Q:    Dalam siasatan, awak kutip barang ini, awak simpan di mana?
A:    Cabinet besi saya, yang sama di pejabat.

Q:    Kabinet tidak berhawa dingin kan?
A:    Tidak, tetapi bilik berhawa dingin.

Q:    Tapi cabinet yang kamu simpan barang-barang ini termasuk swab-swab ini tidak berhawa dingin kan?
A:    Kabinet tidak berhawa dingin.

Q:    So suhunya panas lah dalam cabinet tersebut?
A:    Tidak setuju.

Q:    Jadi awak tahu lah macam mana keadaan suhu dalam cabinet?
A:    Masa itu saya buka air-cond dalam bilik. Kesejukan itu turut berada dalam kabinet.

Q:    Macam mana kamu tahu perkara ini? Kamu pernah masuk ke dalam cabinet itu?
A:    Saya pernah masuk tangan saya ke dalam cabinet.

Q:    Awak diarahkan oleh Dr. Siew untuk specifically letak barang-barang ini dalam keadaan sejuk bukan?
A:    Ya.

YA:    That also asked by SN Nair.
RK:    Yes but we asked it based on different items.

Q:    Berkenaan barang trousers and underwear tersebut, awak simpan dalam plastic bag?
A:    Ya, saya masukkan dalam plastik beg, kemudian saya simpan dalam cabinet besi.

RK:    That would be all.
SN:    I have another 1 question to ask YA.

Q:    Dengan membawa barang dari HKL dalam beg ini iaitu P27, selepas  bukanya dan label sendiri, saya katakan kepada Encik, Encik telah tempered eksibit?
A:    Saya tidak setuju.

SN:    That’s all YA.

Re-examination by Datuk Yusof.

A:    Pada 15.7.2008, adakah kamu yang mengarahkan tangkapan dibuat, yang awal itu?
A:    Bukan saya yang arah.

Q:    Tapi kamu ada waran?
A:    Ya, saya menyimpan warrant.

Q:    Ada kamu beritahu kepada pegawai tangkapan mengenai waran, sebelum dia buat tangkapan di Segambut?
A:    Tidak

Q:    Bila pertama kali kamu serahkan warrant it?
A:    Semasa di IPK

Q:    Masa itu DSAI berada di mana?
A:    Beliau sudah sampai ke IPK.

Q:    Berkaitan dengan warrant of arrest P 85, bilakah pertama kali kamu beri arahan berkaitan warrant yang kamu mohon ini?
A:    Pertama kali di IPK tingkat 7, pukul 2. 30 pm.

Q:    Encik, dalam siasatan ini, Encik ada terima laporan perubatan daripada Dr. Siew?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Pada masa diberikan laporan perubatan itu. ada dikepilkan pro forma?
A:    Tidak.

Q:    Encik tahu tak, bila issue pro forma ini pertama kali ditimbul?
A:    Saya difahamkan ialah selepas perbicaraan langsung. Dalam perbicaraan ini.

Q:    Encik beritahu Encik telah diarahkan untuk rakamkan percakapan ini berkaitan dengan pro forma ini. Ada tak apa-apa soalan atau penjelasan khusus yang diminta oleh Encik Jude yang Encik dapatkan daripada Dr. Razuin?
A:    Soalan berkaitan dengan kemasukan..

Q:    Kamu ingat tak, ia mesti berkaitan dengan pro forma itu? Apakah soalan khusus yang diminta oleh Dr. Razuin?
A:    Adalah di para 1.6; oral attempted, rectal attempted performed ejaculation. Itu sahaja.

Q:    Boleh diterangkan kepada Mahkamah ini, sebelum ini mengapa awak kata awak tidak dapat jelaskan mengapa awak disuruh merakamkan percakapan Dr. Razuin?
A:    Saya tak faham.

Q:    Tadi, bila karpal tanya, kamu cakap kamu tak tahu kenapa kamu diarahkan rakam percakapan.

MY:    He knew the reason, tapi tadi dia jawab “saya tak tahu kenapa saya disuruh rakam”. Can you explain now why?
A:    Yes, I can after I see the part which I cannot remember.

Q:    Masa awak rakam percakapan itu, awak ada bawa pro forma ini?
A:    Ya saya ada bawa pro forma ini.

Q:    Encik, ada freezer di IPD Brickfield?
A:    Ada freezer di dalam store.

Q:    Kenapa tak simpan dalam freezer di store?
A:    Disebabkan terdapat banyak barangan dalam freezer itu, dan saya juga mementingkan keselamatan barang itu secara persendirian, jadi saya memilih untuk meletakkan dalam cabinet besi saya dengan air-cond dipasang dalam bilik.

Q:    Encik habis rakam percakapan DSAI pada pukul 5.40, dan hantar ke hospital pukul berapa?
A:    8.50 malam.

Q:    Antara waktu 5.40 dan 8.50 itu, di mana DSAI ditempatkan?
A:    Beliau ada di IPK, di bilik mesyuarat.

Q:    Ada siapa bersama beliau di bilik mesyuarat ketika itu?
A:    Ada beberapa peguam, antaranya Sivarasa, dan ahli keluarga beliau.

Q:    Siapa ahli keluarga dia yang kamu ingat?
A:    Saya tidak ingat.
MY:    Itu sahaja soalan saya yang arif. Pohon saksi dilepaskan.

MY:    Saya ingin panggil SP 26: Supt Ahmad Taufek, saksi saya yang akhir.
SP26 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

Q:    Pada bulan June 2008…
YA:    Kena bagi pangkat kerja semua dulu. Sebab ini main trial. Kena rekod semula.
A:    Saya sekarang sedang bercuti melanjutkan pelajaran, cuti gaji penuh selama 18 bulan. Saya berumur 49 tahun. Sebelum melanjutkan pelajaran, saya bertugas di Siasatan Khas D9, Bukit Aman.

Q:    Bila mula bercuti belajar?
A:    Mulai 20 Feb 2010.

Q:    Pada 2008 khususnya bulan June, adakah kamu bekerja di Bahagian Siasatan Khas D9 ini?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Pada 16.7.2008, ada Taufek terima apa-apa arahan berkaitan dengan DSAI?
A:    Ya, saya telah menerima arahan dari Pengarah Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah, Dato’ Seri Bakri, untuk menyediakan pasukan bagi menangkap DSAI sekiranya beliau tidak menuju ke IPK dan menuju ke tempat lain apabila pulang dari Putrajaya.

Q:    Adakah ini bermakna pasukan Encik Taufek kena ikut pergerakan DSAI?
A:    Saya mengikut pergerakan melalui orang saya

Q:    Ada orang Taufek yang ikut pergerakan beliau?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Adakah DSAI dari Putrajaya terus ke IPK hari itu?
A:    Daripada pemerhatian pihak polis, saya dapat makluman pada 12.55, bahawa kenderaan DSAI sedang menuju ke arah rumah beliau di Segambut.

Q:    Apakah tindakan Encik selepas dimaklumkan?
A:    Saya telah mengarahkan 2 buah kereta peronda yang bersama pasukan saya untuk membuat halangan di Jalan 161 Segambut, dan apabila kenderaaan DSAI sampai, saya telah menjalankan tangkapan tersebut.

Q:    Pada waktu itu, adakah DSAI seorang atau ada orang lain?
A:    Ada. Semasa tahan kereta tersebut, kalau tidak salah saya, ada 4 orang dalam kereta tersebut bersama DSAI.

Q:    Yang kamu boleh ingat?
A:    Peguam beliau, Encik Sankaran, pemandu saya tak ingat nama dia, dan seorang lagi kalau saya tak silap ialah YB Sivarasa

Q:    Tapi Nair kamu pasti?
A:    Ya

Q:    Semasa tangkapan, siapa yang Taufek jumpa dulu?
A:    Apabila saya menghampiri kereta DSAI, saya telah pergi ke pintu belakang, dan pada masa yang sama, peguam beliau, Encik Sankaran telah keluar dan tanya saya ground of arrest. Saya telah maklumkan bahawa saya menjalankan tangkapan ini di bawah sek 377B iaitu kesalahan yang lazim ditangkap.
Q:    Bagaimana dengan DSAI?
A:    Pada masa itu, pintu telah dibuka, DSAI duduk di kanan kereta, dan pada masa itu, kalau tak salah saya dia telah berhubung dengan telefon.

Q:    Adakah perkara yang sama dimaklumkan kepada beliau?
A:    Ada. Selepas saya maklumkan, peguam telah berbincang sesuatu dengan Dato’ Seri. Dan kemudian saya minta DS ikut saya ke kenderaan polis.

Q:    Ada tak sendiri kamu bercakap dengan DSAI?
A:    Ya, saya ada maklumkan DSAI tentang ground of arrest.

Q:    Kemudian, ke mana kamu bawa?
A:    Saya minta DSAI ikut ke kenderaan saya yang berada di hadapan, dan DSAI beri kerjasama dan terus ke IPK KL.

Q:    Di IPK, di mana kamu bawa DS?
A:    Bawa dia ke tingkat 7, dan saya serahkan pada IO tangkapan tersebut.

Q:    Selain itu?
A:    Semasa di IPK, pukul 2 atau 2 lebih, IO telah meminta saya untuk sempurnakan waran tangkap terhadap DSAI.

Q:    Penyempurnaan waran tangkap dibuat selepas atau sebelum kamu serahkan kepada IO?
A:    Saya serahkan kepada IO.

Q:    Mana dulu? Penyempurnaan waran tangkap atau serah DSAI kepada IO?
A:    Saya membawa DSAI dan serah kepada IO dulu baru IO suruh saya sempurnakan waran tangkap.

Q:    YA, saya mohon saksi ditunjukkan P85. Masa penyempurnaan waran kepada DSAI, apa yang encik lakukan?
A:    Saya telah tunjuk dan baca warrant of arrest tersebut kepada DSAI. Dan saya catit penyempurnaan waran tangkap di belakang waran tersebut. Dan saya mentandatangani dan saya suruh DSAI tandatangani juga di belakang waran tersebut.

Q:    Boleh saya rujuk P85A. Encik lihat dokumen ini, yang depan. Apakah document ini?
A:    Waran tangkap.

Q:    Adakah ini waran tangkap yang kamu maksudkan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Encik telah bacakan waran itu.
A:    Ya.

Q:    Bahagian mana yang dibacakan?
A:    Ya. Bahagian bold ini. [read charge di bahagian bold page hadapan P85A]

Q:    Kamu telah kemudian buat catitan mengenai penyempurnaan waran ini?
A:    Ya, di belakang waran ini. Saya catit tarikh dan masa, saya tandatangan di belah kiri, dan DSAI tandatangan di sebelah kanan.

Q:    Encik, sebelum masa menangkap di Segambut itu, selain daripada Dato’ Seri Bakri, ada siapa yang lain bagi arahan?
A:    Tiada ada.

Q:    Arahan ini diberi secara terus?
A:    Secara terus kepada saya, berjumpa dengan beliau.

Cross-examination by Karpal Singh.

Q:    Encik adakah Encik terlibat dalam penyiasatan kes ini?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Apabila melakukan tangkapan di Segambut, tidak langsung mengetahui tentang kes ini?
A:    Dari segi siasatan saya tak tau…

Q:    Masa itu, tak tahu langsung mengenai kes ini bukan?
A:    Ya, saya tidak terlibat dalam siasatan ini.

Q:    Bagaimana kamu ada menyatakan kamu ada memberi ground of arrest iaitu Sek 377B.
A:    Saya diberitahu oleh Dato’ Seri Bakri untuk melaksanakan tangkapan tersebut di bawah kesalahan ini.

Q:    Saya letakkan kepada kamu, kamu tidak melakukan itu; tidak memberi sebab tangkapan kepada Nair dan DSAI pada bila-bila masa?
A:    Saya ada beri, seperti yang saya maklumkan tadi.

Q:    Di Segambut, ada keluarkan waran tangkap dan diberikan kepada DSAI?
A:    Semasa disana, saya tidak diberikan waran tersebut.

Q:    Ada tahu pada masa itu tentang waran yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah?
A:    Saya tidak tahu.

Q:    That would be all.

Re-examination by Datuk Yusof.

Q:    Adakah Encik Taufek mempunyai apa-apa alasan untuk tidak memberitahu DSAI ataupun Encik Nair tentang mengapa DSAI ditangkap, tentang ground of arrest?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Itu sahaja soalan Re saya, YA.
KS:    YA, before my learned friend closed this prosecution case, we wish to recall Saiful. Only one question I want to ask, with regard to the finding made by Dr. Seah Lay Hong. This finding is only made known later, after Saiful gave evidence.
YA:    This question apa soalannya?
KS:    With regard to another DNA profile in the anus of Saiful.
MY:    There was no such evidence. I know there was suggestion, but there was no such evidence. In the onus, there were only 2. Only at the perianal, more than 2. Because we cannot assume that there was evidence.
KS:    There was an evidence.
YA:    Itu outside je tu kan.
KS:    We suggested it to her. She said she cannot either agree or disagree.

MY:    In Fact, when the last time Karpal posts the question, I was intervening on it. Because looking at it, you cannot assume it was there when it wasn’t there.
KS:    My learned friend did not object to it at all YA, at that time.
MY:    And now, I’m objecting.
YA:    Wait, we stand down for a while.
[11.40] Stand down

[11.46] Kedua-dua pendakwaraya dan peguambela masuk ke kamar Hakim.

[11.49] Kedua-dua pendakwaraya dan peguambela keluar dari kamar Hakim.
Re-call SP1

KS:    YA, I wish to recall SP1.
SP1 angkat sumpah dalam BM.

Q:    Anda telah beri keterangan iaitu ada kejadian pada 26.6.08. Anda telah diperiksa pada 28.6 di HKL?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Di antara 26 dan 28, adakah Saiful pergi ke tandas?
A:    Ada pergi ke bilik air, tetapi tak buang air besar.

Q:    Tidak buang air besar?
A:    Tidak.

Q:    Di mana tandas ini?
A:    Ada beberapa.

Q:    Keterangan telah diberi oleh seorang pakar, Dr. Seah iaitu DNA profiling ada didapati di perianal region, swab B9, dan dia mengatakan iaitu DNA profiling kepunyaan lebih kurang 3 orang yang lain ada didapati dalam perianal region.

MY:    It is not correct.
KS:    I’m saying it.

Q:    Ada faham soalan saya. Kesan 3 DNA lain ada didapati di tubuh Encik Saiful?
A:    Saya tidak tahu.

Q:    Keterangan ini telah diberi oleh doktor ini.
MY:    So, soalan?

Q:    Di keliling tubuh. Itu bermakna, ada 2 atau 3 partners yang telah melakukan seks ke atas awak?
A:    Tidak.

Q:    So apa yang dikatakan oleh doktor itu tidak benar?
A:    Saya tak dapat komen. Tetapi tidak ada..

Q:    Tetapi adakah itu bermakna..
YA:    He already said he don’t want to answer.
KS:    Ok, we leave it to submission. That would be all.

Re-examination of SP1 by Datuk Yusof.

Q:    Antara 26.6 sehingga 28.6, boleh beritahu ada tak kamu mandi?
A:    Saya ada membilas badan saya.

Q:    Antara 2 tarikh ini, mandi di mana?
A:    Di rumah. Satu, semasa selepas kejadian di kondo, yang kedua, keesokannya di rumah.

Q:    Ada kamu pergi ke tempat lain, bermalam di tempat lain selepas kejadian?
A:    Saya tidak.

Q:    Ada kamu bilas badan kamu di lain-lain tempat?
A:    Tidak, kecuali di dua tempat ini sahaja.

Q:    Itu sahaja soalan saya.

MY:    Sebelum kes pendakwaan menutup kes ini, saya ada dua permohonan yang hendak dikemukakan.
SN:    Just for the record, YA, we do not have any further cross on SP8, ASP Fauziah.

MY:    YA telah membuat satu ruling berkaitan dengan eksibit-eksibit yang dikumpulkan di lokap, dan apa-apa tentangan mengenainya. Pihak lawan ingin memohon supaya Mahkamah ini menyemak semula ruling itu berdasarkan keterangan baru yang ada. Masalah yang dihadapi pihak pendakwaan ialah, bila YA membuat ruling itu, kita tidak tahu apa asasnya. Is it because you find that the arrest is unlawful or whatever it is. I’m sure whether or not in the course of your ruling and when you consider the submission by parties, whether or not D3, the copy of the warrant of arrest which was produced by us through arresting officer was considered by you. We didn’t know, because it was not marked as exhibit. Now, we have the original warrant before the court, and also the evidence to the effect that it was read, and for the first time in the Honourable Court that what was read is actually something that is similar to the charge.

YA:    In short, you want to ask me to review my decision based on the new evidence so far.
MY:    Yes.

YA:    So when can you have the full submission on it?
A:    That is one. The second one, without prejudice to the first application, we invite your lordship to exercise your power under Section 73 and 165 of Evidence Act, to order DSAI to provide specimen for DNA profiling. But of course if my learned friend has no objection, then we won’t have any problem on that.
Because this court is concerned with justice, and to find out the truth, and in order to ascertain the truth, the court should obtain certain proof to certain facts which are in dispute, i.e whether of not the DNA found in the anus of Saiful is DNA belonging to DSAI. So these two, if my learned friend have objection, we would request, of having consulted Mr. Karpal, that a full submission to be made on Monday. But if the second application Mr Karpal has no objection to it, that would be the end of the matter.
KS:    We have objection to the second application YA.
YA:    First one?
KS:    Well, depends on what my learned friend has to say. Even on that, it was not so much on the arrest, it is on unfair means and unfair method.
YA:    Never mind. Now I get it. That you are objecting to both.
KS:    Of course, the objection will be there. They are raising the second one, that they are asking your Lordship to direct to be examined, for DNA purposes. This was not happening anywhere before this.
YA:    Never mind. I’ll here the full submission by both parties then and I’ll decide lah. So it will be on Monday.
YA:     Submission panjang ke ni?
MY:    For the review, I’ll make it short and sweet.
YA:    Takpelah, we fix on Monday and let see how. Kalau tak habis Monday kita sambung je lah. Kita pun ada 2 minggu lagi tarikh yang kita fix untuk kes ini. So I take it there is no more witness to be call. Only on Monday there is submission on these two application. Pukul 9 kita sambung.
[12.04] Court adjourn.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 10 Mac 2011 March 14, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Sodomy II.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

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

PP: Semua hadir
PB: KS, SN, Ram Karpal, Marissa
WB: Zambri Idrus (for complainant)

[9.06 a.m]
MY: Kes untuk sambung bicara. Izinkan saya panggil saksi pendakwaan yang ke 25, SP 25 Supt Jude Pereira.
Supt Bahagian Pendakwaan dan Undang-Undang di Bukit Aman, umur 58 tahun.

SP 25 baca sumpah dalam BM.

EIC by MY.

Q: Sejak bila bertugas di Bahagian Pendakwaan dan Undang-Undang Bukit Aman?
A: Mulai 4.1.2011.

Q: Sebelum ditukarkan ke Bukit Aman, di manakah Encik bertugas?
A: Sebelum ditukarkan ke bahagian pendakwaan, saya bertugas sebagai KBSJD Brickfields iaitu mulai 1.6.2007.

Q: Cuba lihat ke arah kandang orang kena tuduh mahkamah. Siapakah itu?

Q: Tahu mengapa beliau berada di situ?
A: Ya, beliau menghadapi pertuduhan di bawah seksyen 377B iaitu satu laporan yang dibuat oleh Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Q: Adakah Encik telah menjalankan siasatan dalam kes ini?
A: Ya.

Q: Encik beritahu yang DSAI berada di sini kerana menghadapi pertuduhan berikutan satu laporan yang dibuat oleh Saiful. Boleh Encik camkan Saiful Bukhari ini?
A: Ya.

Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan dicamkan.

Q: Bilakah pertama kali Encik diberitahu mengenai laporan ini?
A: Mula sekali saya diberitahu mengenai laporan ini adalah pada jam 6.35 petang pada 28.6.2008.

Q: Ketika itu di mana Encik berada?
A: Saya berada di pejabat saya Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Daerah Brickfields.

Q: Pada bulan Jun, khususnya 28.6.2008, Encik bertugas di Daerah Brickfields ya, bahagian siasatan Jenayah?
A: Ya.

Q: Apa yang diberitahu kepada Encik?
A: Saya telah dimaklumkan mengenai satu laporan iaitu Travers Rpt 4350/08 di mana pengadu adalah seorang lelaki Melayu bernama Saiful Bukhari yang telah saya cam, dan beliau telah mengadu bahawa beliau telah diliwat oleh DSAI di unit 1151 Kondominium Seri Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara Kuala Lumpur.

Q: Encik diberitahu melalui telefon?
A: Ya.

W: Tindakan seterusnya yang diambil oleh Encik Jude?
A: Saya telah maklumkan laporan tersebut kepada Dato’ Khoo Chin Wah iaitu ketika itu beliau adalah OCCI KL.

Q: Setelah diberitahu, adakah apa-apa arahan yang diberi kepada encik?
A: Ya beliau telah mengarahkan saya menjalankan siasatan untuk laporan ini.

Q: Berikutan dengan arahan ini, apakah tindakan Encik selanjutnya?
A: Saya telah pergi berjumpa pengadu di HKL pada lebih kurang 8.30 malam.

Q: Masa berjumpa beliau, adakah beliau seorang atau bersama orang lain?
A: Ada, iaitu Dr. Razuin yang sedang menemu bual pengadu pada ketika itu.

Q: Adakah Encik ada bercakap dengan kedua-dua orang ini?
A: Ya.

Q: Dr. Razuin yang camkan Encik semalam?
A: Ya.

Q: Apa yang Encik cakapkan kepada mereka?
A: Saya telah menemubual pengadu secara ringkas berhubung dengan kejadian, dan beliau telah mengadu bahawa beliau telah diliwat oleh DSAI dan pada masa yang sama, Dr. Razuin juga telah menemu bual pengadu dan buat catitan mengenai latar belakang dan sebagainya.

Q: Apa yang Saiful buat ketika berada di hospital itu?
A: Saiful berada di hospital untuk buat pemeriksaan berkaitan dengan laporan ini.

Q: Sebelum saya pergi jauh, tentang Travers Rpt. yang Encik beritahu tadi. Encik ada lihat laporan itu?
A: Ya.

Q: YA, saya merujuk saksi kepada eksibit P3. Cuba lihat laporan ini, adakah ini laporan yang dibuat oleh Saiful yang Encik katakan tadi?
A: Ya.

Q: Apakah nombor report nya?
A: Travers Rpt 4350/08.

Q: Pengadunya?
A: Pengadunya adalah Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan.

P3 Travers Rpt No: 4350/08 dicamkan.

Q: Boleh beritahu mahkamah, Encik Saiful berada di sana untuk tujuan pemeriksaan? Boleh beritahu bagaimana Encik tahu?
A: Saya tahu sebab saya telah jumpa 3 orang doktor yang telah datang ke sana untuk membuat pemeriksaan ke atas Saiful yang mana saya telah memberitahu doktor tersebut tentang pengaduan Saiful.

Q: Bila ketiga-tiga doktor ini datang?
A: Jam 9 malam.

Q: So mereka datang kemudian selepas Encik berjumpa Saiful?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh beritahu siapakah doktor-doktor itu?
A: Dr. Siew Shueu Feng, Dr. Razali, dan Dr. Khairul.

Q: Encik beritahu maklumkan kepada mereka?
A: Saya telah maklumkan kepada mereka mengenai laporan tersebut yang dibuat oleh Saiful.

Q: Adakah kemudiannya Saiful diperiksa?
A: Ya.

Q: Sebelum pemeriksaan dibuat, ada apa-apa doktor ini buat? Adakah mereka ada tanya soalan dulu kepada Saiful?
A: Mereka tidak tanya soalan. Yang tanya soalan sebelum itu ialah Dr. Razuin.

Q: Adakah Encik pasti mereka tiada temubual?
A: Saya rasa mereka telah menemubual Saiful secara ringkas kalau mengikut ingatan saya.

Q: Pemeriksaan ini dibuat, di mana tu?
A: Bilik Mawar, HKL.

Q: Encik Jude bertemu dengan Saiful dan Dr. Razuin tu di mana?
A: Di luar bilik Mawar.

Q: Apakah tempat itu?
A: Sebuah bilik di dalam Bilik Mawar.

A: Ya.

Q: Masa pemeriksaan, Dr. Razuin ada?
A: Ya.

Q: Apa peranan Dr. Razuin?
A: Saya lihat dia hanya membuat catitan semasa pemeriksaan dilakukan,

Q: Encik juga berada dalam Bilik Mawar itu semasa pemeriksaan dilakukan?
A: Ya, saya turut ada bersama-sama.

Q: Apa peranan Encik?
A: Hanya membuat pemerhatian.

Q: Adakah Encik berada di sana sepanjang masa pemeriksaan dibuat?
A: Ya

Q: Pemeriksaan dilakukan lebih kurang pukul berapa?
A: 9.30 malam sehingga pukul 11.30 malam.

Q: Adakah ini termasuk temubual atau pemeriksaan sahaja?
A: Lebih kepada pemeriksaan.

Q: Siapa yang membuat pemeriksaan sepanjang ingatan Encik?
A: Dr. Razali dan Khairul.

Q: Dr. Siew?
A: Dr Siew telah mengambil swab-swab yang diambil daripada Saiful.

Q: Yang buat pemeriksaan 2 orang sahaja ya?
A: Ya, 2 orang.

Q: Ada specimen diambil daripada Saiful?
A: Ya.

Q: Encik tahu, apa yang dilakukan terhadap specimen yang diambil daripada Saiful?
A: Ya, specimen telah dimasukkan ke dalam bekas oleh Dr. Siew, iaitu ada 10 specimens swab yang diambil. Dan satu FTA card darah, dan satu botol darah untuk ujian toksikologi.

Q: Kalau boleh Encik teruskan?
A: Seterusnya selepas pemeriksaan dilakukan dan kesemua swab itu ditelak dalam bekas, dan FTA card serta satu botol darah untuk toksikologi, Dr. Siew dan Saiful telah sealkan bahan-bahan berikut. Selepas itu, Dr. Siew dan pengadu telah menandatangani di atas setiap specimen yang di ambil. Seterusnya, Dr. Siew telah masukkan kesemua specimen dalam satu beg plastik yang telah ditutup. Beg plastik itu adalah Kementerian Kesihatan Forensik HKL, yang saya boleh ingat, YA.

Q: Beg ini, ditutup?
A: Yang diseal.

Q: Kemudian?
A: Saya telah tandatangan satu borang penerimaan barang-barang tersebut daripada Dr. Siew.

Q: Kenapa penerimaan?
A: Kerana beliau memberi beg yang mengandungi specimen-specimen yang telah diambil dan terus serahkan kepada saya dalam Bilik Mawar.

Q: Jude telah menandatangi satu dokumen. Dokumen apakah itu?
A: Mengenai pengesahan penerimaan barang-barang tersebut daripada Dr. Siew.

Q: Saya ingin merujuk saksi kepada P23. Cuba lihat adakah dokumen ini serah-menyerah yang Jude dan Dr. Siew tandatangani?
A: Ya.

Q: Ini adalah merupakan akuan bahawa Encik ada terima barang-barang ini?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh Encik bacakan apa swab yang diambil?
A: [read senarai specimen yang diambil di dalam P23]

Q: Dan di bawah itu dinyatakan siapa yang melabel dan mengambil dan memeterikan specimen ini?
A: Bekas specimen di labelkan oleh Dr. Siew, specimen diamblil oleh Dr. Khairul dan Dr. Razali, dan specimen di sealkan/meteri oleh Dr. Siew.

Q: Encik, dokumen ini siapa yang sediakan?
A: Pihak hospital yang sediakan.

Q: Tulisan?
A: Di para 1 adalah tulisan saya, dengan pangkat, nombor dan jabatan.

Q: Yang lain?
A: Yang lain ditulis oleh Dr. Siew.

Q: Ini beg plastic ini yang boleh telus, lutsinar?
A: Ya, lutsinar, jadi boleh nampak yang dalam.

Q: Lebih kurang pukul berapa ini serahkan?
A: Saya diserahkan bungkusan yang mengandungi barang-barang tersebut pada pukul 12.35 am.

P23, Borang pengendalian specimen Mediko-Legal dicamkan.

Q: Setelah menerima barang-barang ini di dalam beg plastic itu, apa yang Encik lakukan seterusnya?
A: Selepas terima barang-barang dr Dr. Siew, saya balik ke pejabat] di bahagian siasatan jenayah di Brickfields. Saya masuk ke pejabat saya, dan saya telah menyimpan specimen-specimen ini di dalam sebuah kabinet besi yang telah saya kuncikan.

Q: Siapa yang pegang kunci?
A: Saya.

Q: Ini lebih kurang pukul berapa encik simpan dalam cabinet?
A: Lebih kurang pukul 1 pagi 29.6.2008.

Q: Bagaimana keadaan pejabat Encik Judy?
A: Air cond dipasang, lebih kurang suhu 18c.

Q: Adakah lazim ianya dipasang?
A: Ya, memang dipasang setiap masa.

Q: Berkaitan dengan laporan polis oleh Encik Saiful, adakah Encik Judy menerima atau mengambil atau merampas apa-apa eksibit?
A: Ya, saya telah rampas satu baju Ralph Lauren warna biru muda di Hospital selepas saya rakam percakapan beliau pada 30hb.

Q: Beliau ini siapa?
A: Mohd Saiful.

Q: Lagi?
A: Dekat sana saya ambil baju sahaja.

Q: Adakah apa-apa akuan penerimaan ditandatangani?
A: Saya telah tandatangani satu akuan serah menyerah baju tersebut, bersama Saiful.

Q: YA, saya merujuk saksi kepada eksibit P7.
A: Ya, ini adalah akuan serah-menyerah baju Ralph Lauren, dan tandatangan saya dan Saiful ada di sana.

P7, Borang serah-menyerah “baju kemeja Ralph Lauren” dicamkan.

Q: Pada tarikh yang sama, 29.6.2008, jam 7.30 petang, ada kamu terima atau rampas apa-apa barang kes lagi?
A: Saya mohon rujuk pada ID siasatan saya. Saya telah merampas satu tiub KY Gel jenama Johnson & Johnson semasa di pejabat saya.

Q: Untuk KY ini, adakah kamu telah keluarkan borang serah-menyerah?
A: Ya, yang mana telah ditandatangani oleh saya dan Saiful

Q: YA, saya ingin rujukkan saksi ini kepada P10. Adakah ini akuan serah-menyerah item KY jenama Johnson&Johnson?
A: Ya, ini adalah borang serah menyerah tiub KY jenama Johnson Johson.

Q: Ada tandatangan kamu dan Saiful?
A: Ya.

P10, Borang serah-menyerah KY Jelly dicamkan.

Q: Kedua-dua KY Jelly dan baju jenama Ralph Lauren, apa yang Encik buat kepada barang ini?
A: Saya telah ambil barang tersebut dan letak dalam peti besi saya dalam pejabat dan menguncinya.

Q: Saya ingin merujuk saksi kepada P4.  Adakah ini yang kamu terima daripada Saiful? Ada apa-apa tanda dibuat ke atasnya?
A: Saya tidak membuat sebarang tanda ke atas gel, tetapi saya ada buat tanda pada envelope di mana saya telah membungkus barang tersebut.

Q: Kamu tidak buat tanda pada gel, tapi membuat tandaan pada envelope?
A: Ya.

Q: Seterusnya, selepas itu, ada apa-apa lagi eksibit?
A: Pada 29.6.2008, jam lebih kurang 8.50 malam, saya telah pergi ke rumah pengadu di Bandar Utama Damansara bersama-sama pengadu. Sampai di rumah tersebut, Mohd Saiful telah menyerahkan kepada saya
i. Satu helai seluar panjang hitam yang beliau katakan telah dipakai semasa kejadian’
ii. Satu helai baju kemeja lengan panjang hijau jenama G2000; dan
iii. Satu helai seluar dalam warna dark grey jenama Levi’s.

Q: Jadi ada 3 items?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah itu sahaja barang yang diserahkan?
A: Di rumah Saiful itu sahaja.

Q: Adakah Encik ada menandatangani borang serah-menyerah bersama Saiful?
A: Ya, saya telah menandatangani satu borang serah-menyerah bersama dengan Saiful.

Q: Saya merujuk saksi kepada P8. Adakah ini dokumen serah-menyerah yang kamu tandatangani berkaitan dengan 3 item yang kamu rampas di rumah Saiful di Bandar Utama Damansara?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya ingin merujuk saksi kepada P12, P13 dan P14. Cuba lihat kandungannya. . Cuba bandingkan dengan borang P8. Adakah ini ketiga-tiga item tadi?
A: Saya cam seluar warna hitam biru, saya juga cam baju warna hijau G2000 dan cam seluar dalam Levis warna dark grey.

Q: Berdasarkan apa Encik buat pengecaman ini? Ada tanda dibuat di atas 3 item ini?
A: Saya ada letak sign saya di bahagian dalam barang-barangan ini.

Q: Ketiga-tiga ada tandatangan?
A: Ya.

Q: Apa tarikhnya di situ?
A: 29hb.6.08..

Q: Untuk ketiga-tiga item ini, selain daripada itu, ada eksibit lain lagi?
A: Ada. Saya juga telah rampas seluar dalam hitam biru/dark jenama Levi’s di rumah teman wanita Saiful di mana barangan tersebut berada di dalam washing machine telah dibasuh.

Q: Adakah kamu keluarkan borang dan tandatangani?
A: Ya saya telah keluarkan  borang serah-menyerah yang telah ditandatangani oleh Saiful dan saya.

Q: Barang ini telah diserahkan oleh Saiful kepada Encik?
A: Ya, Saiful yang serahkan pada saya.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kepada P9. Adakah ini borang serah-menyerah tersebut?
A: Ya, ini adalah borang serah menyerah yang saya telah tandatangan  bersama Saiful.

P9, Borang serah-menyerah “seluar dalam jenama Levi’s warna hitam/biru”dicamkan.

Q: Saya ingin merujuk saksi kepada P15. Cuba lihat adakah ini seluar dalam yang diserahkan ketika di rumah teman wanita Saiful?
A: Ya, ini adalah seluar dalam yang saya terima dari Saiful.

Q: Ada buat tandatangan kamu pada seluar dalam itu?
A: Tidak ada, sebab semasa itu dia basah.

Q: Encik, berkaitan dengan kesemua eksibit ini, apa yang kamu lakukan ke atas semua eksibit ini?
A: Kesemua eksibit yang saya terima, saya telah masukkan ke dalam peti besi di pejabat saya. Seterusnya, pada 1hb Julai…

Q: Selepas 29hb, 30/6/2008 apa jadi?
A: Saya telah pergi ke tempat kejadian, di Kondo Desa Damansara KL, Jalan Setiakasih Bukit Damansara Kuala Lumpur.

Q: Tadi Encik mahu mengatakan tentang 1hb. Apa yang berlaku pada 1hb?
A: Saya telah menanda eksibit ini yang saya terima.

Q: Pada 1hb ini? Cuba lihat ID Encik. Berapa haribulan ini?
A: 1hb Julai 2008, saya telah membuka kabinet besi di pejabat saya dan telah mengeluarkan eksibit2 yang telah saya bagitau tadi, bersama-sama dengan ada beberapa eksibit yang saya terima di tempat kejadian.

Q: Exhibit mana ni? Can you be more specific?
A: Saya telah membungkus satu helai bulu di belakang pintu di unit 1151 di Kondominium Desa Damansara.

YA: Tapi tadi kata 30.6.2008 kamu pergi ke tempat kejadian?
MY: Dia terus pergi 1hb, saya tanya pasal 30hb.

A: Pada 30hb, pukul 12.10, saya telah pergi ke tempat kejadian bersama-sama dengan satu team forensic.

Q: Boleh tak khusus sedikit apa tempat kejadian ini?
A: Satu kondo dengan beberapa blok di mana entrance dikawal oleh anggota…

Q: Encik, bila kata tempat kejadian itu, tolonglah beri yang khusus sedikit, seperti di pertuduhan.
A: Dia adalah sebuah unit 1151 di tingkat 5 di Blok 11.

Q: Jadi kamu pergi bersama team forensik?
A: Ya, juga bersama-sama dengan pengadu yang turut hadir. Team forensic apabila masuk ke dalam unit 1151, telah menjumpai sehelai rambut di belakang pintu bilik utama.

Q: Seterusnya?
A: Seterusnya, pada pukul 3.05 petang itu, team forensik telah rampas satu duvet warna biru dan juga satu china silk karpet daripada unit 1152.

Q: Ini team forensic ini, siapa yang ketuai?
A: Yang mengetuai team forensik ini adalah Supt Amidon.

Q: Di bilik 1151, kamu telah dapatkan satu helai bulu, di unit 1152, kamu dapat satu duvet dan satu china silk carpet.
A: Ya.

Q: Sebelum pergi jauh bagaimana Encik boleh masuk ke dalam kedua-dua unit ini?
A: Saya masuk ke unit 1151 dan 1152 dengan meminta tuan punya rumah, iaitu Encik Hasanuddin.

Q: Boleh camkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Selepas rampas barang-barang ini, 3 item itu, apa yang kamu buat?
A: Saya telah tandatangan borang serah menyerah bersama dengan tuan punya rumah iaitu isteri kepada Encik Hasanuddin bernama Nor Sham.

Q: Di mana Encik Hasanuddin ketika itu?
A: Beliau juga berada di situ.

Q: Adakah ini Encik Hasanuddin?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah ini tuan punya unit 1151 dan 1152?
A: Ya.

Encik Hasanuddin bin Abdul Hamid dicamkan.

Q: Encik beritahu ketiga-tiga item ini diberi kepada Encik oleh Supt. Amidon. Bagaimana dia kasi?
A: Beliau telah membungkus kesemua ketiga2 item ini.

Q: Ada kamu membuat menandatangani dokumen serah menyerah?
A: Ada.

Q: Saya ingin merujuk saksi kepada eksibit P43A dan P43. Cuba lihat.
A: Ini adalah…

Q: Ini dia memang kasi dalam envelope?
A: Ya. Ini adalah satu helai bulu.

Q: Adakah ini envelope dan kandungan yang kamu terima daripada Amidon pada hari itu?
A: Ya.

P43 Envelope marked “A”dan 43A, dan 43C dicamkan

Q: Sekarang saya mahu merujuk saksi kepada P49 dan 49A, carpet.
A: Ya, ini adalah bungkusan dan karpet yang saya terima daripada Supt Amidon yang diambil dari Unit 1152.

P49, Packaging marked “A1” dan P49A Multi-coloured carpet from packaging “A” di camkan

Q: Sekarang, cuba lihat P50 dan P50A.
A: Ya, ini adalah duvet yang telah dibungkus oleh Supt. Amidon.

Q: Untuk ketiga-tiga item ini, semasa diserahkan kepada kamu, kamu telah tandatangani dokumen serah-menyerah?
A: Ya.

Q: Di mana penyerahan itu telah dibuat?
A: Penyerahan itu telah dibuat di Unit 1152.

Q: Saya ingin merujuk saksi kepada P79. Ini borang apa, Encik Judy?
A: Ini adalah borang serah-menyerah barang kes antara Supt. Amidon dan saya.

Q: Encik ada beritahu, isteri Encik Hasanuddin pun ada tandatangan borang serah-menyerah? Itu antara dia dengan awak, atau dia dengan Amidon?
A: Saya dengan dia.

Q: Siapa yang rampas?
A: Supt Amidon.

Q: Kesemua barang-barang ini kemudiannya apa yang Jude lakukan?
A: Saya bawa semua barang-barang kes tersebut pulang ke pejabat dan saya telah masukkan dalam kabinet besi berkunci di pejabat saya di IPD Brickfields, dan kunci.

Q: Encik Jude, ada 12 specimens yang Encik beritahu telah terima daripada Dr. Siew, yang Encik cakap telah bawa balik dan simpan dalam peti besi?
A: Benar.

Q: Pada 29/6?
A: Ya.

Q: Apa yang Jude buat pada kedua belas-dua belas specimen ini?
A: Pada 30.6.2008 pada 9.00 pagi di pejabat saya, saya telah membuka peti besi, dan mengeluarkan beg plastic yang mengandungi barang-barang kes yang telah diterima daripada Dr Siew iaitu 12 spesimen-spesimen,untuk dibungkus dan dibuat penandaan.

Q: Menda tu dah seal dah, kenapa Encik keluarkan semula?
A: Saya keluarkan specimen-specimen itu,disebabkan saya hendak memeriksa dengan teliti sama ada barang-barang itu mempunyai seal yang in tact, dan saya juga hendak tandakan setiap satu barang sebabnya, Dr. Siew tidak membuat sebarang penandaan, hanya buat nombor sahaja iaitu 1-12.

Q: Ada label?
A: Ada label tetapi tiada tanda.

Q: Macam mana kamu tanda ini?
A: Saya tanda setiap barangan ini yang setiap satu specimen saya masukkan ke dalam satu envelope putih. Dan saya tandakan specimen ini dari B hingga B11.

Q: Buat penandaan pada container ke atau tidak?
A: Hanya pada envelope.

Q: Setiap specimen, Encik letak dalam satu envelope yang berasingan?
A: Ya.

Q: Dan apa yang Jude katakan tadi?
A: Saya tandakan sebagai B-B11.

Q: Selain daripada itu, ada apa lain yang Encik buat?
A: Saya telah sealkan setiap envelope itu.

Q: Selain daripada penandaan B-B11 itu, ada catitan lain yang dibuat?
A: Nama specimen itu, berdasarkan kepada nama specimen yang terkandung di dalam setiap specimen itu yang diserahkan.

Q: Adakah penandaan itu dibuat mengikut turutan seperti dalam borang?
A: Ya.

Q: Masa beritahu encik nak periksa sama ada seal itu intact, masa keluarkan itu, bagaimana keadaan seal pada container?
A: Setiap specimen yang saya telah lihat, seal nya adalah intact.

Q: Encik kata masukkan, tanda, pastikan nama dia, kemudian seal. Kamu sealkan dengan seal apa?
A: Saya sealkan dengan 330 Polis Diraja Malaysia.

Q: Kemudian apa yang Encik Jude buat?
A: Selepas saya tanda setiap specimen, masukkan ke dalam envelope B-B11, saya telah masukkan semua dalam cabinet yang saya telah kunci.

Q: Mula-mula saya mahu tunjukkan P27. Encik, adakah ini plastik lutsinar yang kamu katakan di mana barang-barang ini diletak semasa barang-barang ini diserahkan oleh Dr. Siew?
A: Ya, saya cam plastic ini, dan juga nama-nama specimen yang ditulis dalam pen biru, 1 hingga 12.

Q: Adakah Encik tandatangan di atas plastic ini?
A: Saya tidak buat sebarang tanda tangan di atas plastic beg ini.

Q: Kamu cam plastic ini kerana apa?
A: Saya cam kerana Institut Perubatan Forensik Negara Hospital, Kuala Lumpur dan juga nama-nama specimen yang ditulis oleh Dr. Siew.

P27, Plastic bag dari Jabatan Forensik HKL (yang digunakan untuk menyimpan semua sampel yang diambil) dicamkan.

Q: Saya ingin merujuk kepada eksibit P31 hingga P42. Cuba lihat sampul dulu. Adakah ini sampul surat-sampul surat bertanda yang kamu tandakan tersebut sebagai B-B11 yang diisi dengan 12 barang kes yang diterima daripada Dr Siew?
A: Ya, saya cam.

Q: Selain daripada itu? Itu tulisan kamu ke?
A: Tidak, ini bukan tulisan saya, ini adalah tulisan sarjan yang membantu saya untuk membungkus bersama saya. Saya tidak tandatangan, tetapi saya camkan berdasarkan tanda-tanda yang diletakkan B-B11 dan juga nama swab yang ditulis oleh Sarjan Mat yang membantu saya.

Q: Masa Sarjan menulis ini, atas seliaan Encik?
A: Di hadapan saya, bawah seliaan saya.

P31-P42 dicamkan.

Q: Boleh kamu keluarkan kandungan envelope-envelope itu? Saya ingin merujuk kepada kandungan envelope ini, iaitu yang telah ditanda sebagai P6A-L. Cuba lihat satu-satu. Awak bukak, pada itu tulis apa, dan dalam itu label sama tak?
A: Ok, saya lihat bekas di dalam envelope B1…(saksi ingin membuka)

MY: YA, pada peringkat ini, saya ingin mohon stand down sekejap sementara saksi ini melihat setiap satu, sama ada correspond dengan tandatangan dan ..
KS: We have no objection.
YA: Ok, tangguh sekejap.

[10.11] Stand down


Q: YA, tadi saya telah meminta supaya Encik melihat kepada setiap envelope dan kandungan masa kita berhenti rehat tadi. Pertama, ada kah kandungan P6A-L itu adalah barang-barang yang kamu terima daripada Dr. Siew pada malam 29hb 6 itu?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah ini specimen yang ditandatangani oleh Dr. Siew dan Saiful?
A: Ya, kesemua specimen ini saya telah memeriksa dan sahkan ia mempunyai tandatangan.

Q: Maksud saya, adakah ini dokumen yang kamu lihat Dr. Siew dan Saiful tandatangan, dilabelkan dan diserah kan kepada kamu?
A: Ya, benar.

Q: P6-P6L, envelope B-B11, encik lihat adakah setiap envelope itu mengandungi specimen yang dinyatakan di luarnya? Label di dalam sama dengan yang dicatitkan di luar?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya merujuk saksi ini kepada P6E dan 6F. Tadi kamu dah periksa semuanya. Semua container ini ada 2 tandatangan? Ada tarikh juga, dan label?
A: Ya.

W: Bagi P6E dan 6F, cuba beritahu apa tarikh yang dicatit?
A: Tarikhnya adalah 26.8.08 untuk P6E.

Q: P6F?
A: Juga 26.8.2008.

Q: Boleh kamu sahkan ini yang kamu lihat di tandatangan dan diserahkan kepada kamu pada 29.6.2008?
A: Ya, ini yang diserahkan kepada saya pada 29.6 di Bilik Mawar.

Q: Dan diberi kepada kamu selepas sahaja pemeriksaan dibuat?
A: Ya.

Q: Sepanjang pengetahuan encik, berkaitan siasartan dakwaan Saiful, ada tak apa-apa eksibit diberikan pada tarikh 28.8.2008 atau tarikh2 yang lain?
A: Tiada.

Q: Boleh Encik beritahu, pada malam itu 29.6.08, ada 12 specimens telah diserahkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Termasuk dua specimens yang tercatit tarikh 28.8 itu?
A: Benar.

Q: Berkaitan specimen ini, kamu telah masukkan ke dalam envelope, kamu tandakan dan seal. Kamu juga labelkan apa kandungannya, kemudian apa yang kamu lakukan, adakah kamu hantar ke Jabatan Kimia?
A: Ya.

Q: Apabila hantar, pada siapa diserahkan?
A: Pada 30.6.08 jam 7.50 p.m saya telah hantar kesemua eksibit ke Jabatan Kimia Petaling Jaya.

Q: Kepada siapa kamu serahkan kesemua eksibit ini?
A: Kepada ahli kimia Dr. Seah Lay Hong.

Q: Dan Dr. Seah telah mengecam kamu tempoh hari?
A: Ya, dia telah mengecam saya.

Q: Bersama dengan specimen yang dihantar ini, ada kamu keluarkan POL 31?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya mohon supaya rujuk kepada eksibit P24. Adakah ini borang POL 31 tersebut yang kamu keluarkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah kamu serahkan satu salinan kepada Dr. Seah?
A: Ya.

Q: Cuba rujuk m/s pertama P24, cuba rujuk tarikh?
A: Dicatitkan sebagai 28.8.2008.

Q: Hari yang encik pergi ke Jabatan Kimia tu sebenarnya bila?
A: 30 hb 6.

Q: Boleh beritahu saya, apakah tarikh ini (sambil merujuk kepada tarikh dalam P24)?
A: Sepatutnya ia adalah tarikh laporan dibuat.

Q: Dalam P3, tarikh laporan dibuat itu adalah bila? P3, tarikh aduan adalah tarikh laporan polis? Apa tarikhnya?
A: 28.6.2008

Q: Jadi, apa maksud Encik tentang tarikh itu?
A: Terdapat kesilapan YA. Sebenarnya adalah 28.6.08.

Q: Tarikh pada POL 31 ini sepatutnya merujuk kepada apa?
A: Tarikh report.

Q: Setelah kamu menyerahkan barang-barang kes kepada Dr Seah, adakah kamu menerima apa-apa akuan penerimaan daripada Jabatan Kimia?
A: Ya.

Q: Rujuk saksi kepada P30. Cuba lihat document tersebut.
A: Ya, ini adalah akuan penerimaan. Tarikh adalah 30.6.08, masa 7.55.

P30, Receipt from Chemist Department dated 30th June 2008 issued by Dr. Seah.dicamkan.

Q: Encik Jude beritahu telah diberikan specimen di hospital, di Bilik Mawar OSCC. Kemudian, Encik ada pergi ke Kondominium di unit 1151 dan 1152 mengambil barang-barang kes. Kemudian, ada juga ambil baju, seluar di rumah Saiful dan rumah teman wanitanya. Selain daripada eksibit ini, di Kondominium Damansara, ada apa-apa eksibit lain yang Encik ambil?
A: Pada 30.6.2008, pukul 11 malam saya telah terima satu HD di pejabat pengurusan dan saya juga telah terima satu HD dari guard house pada pukul 11.30.

Q: Ini En. Jude terima atau ambil?
A: Saya terima sahaja.

Q: Daripada siapa?
A: Terima daripada En. Aris iaitu pengurus kondo.

Q: Semasa menerima hard disk ini, di mana penyerahan di buat? Di pejabat pegurus atau di guard house?
A: Di pejabat.

Q: Siapa yang hadir selain daripada En. Aris?
A: Yang hadir semasa penyerahan adalah Supt. Fadzil, En. Zabri dan En. Shahrizuan.

Q: Mereka tlh camkan kamu tempoh hari?
A: Ya, mereka telah camkan saya.

Q: Semasa menerima hard disk 2 ini adakah borang serah menyerah dikeluarkan dan ditandatangani?
A: Ya, dikeluarkan borang serah menyerah dan saya dan en. Aris iaitu manager kondo tersebut telah tandatangan.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kpd P76. Adakah ini borang yang kamu maksudkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Ini borang apa?
A: Ini borang serah menyerah sebuah hard disk jenama Sea Gate.

Q: Tapi ditulis disitu senarai pemerikaan?
A: Ya, sebenarnya ini adalah borang serah menyerah.

Q: Tajuk disitu “senarai pemeriksaan”?
A: Ini adalah rampasan sebenarnya.

Q: Jadi semasa kamu sebut borang serah menyerah inilah ianya?
A: Ya.

Q: Ini borang serah menyerah untuk hard disk dari mana?
A: Hard disk dari guard house.

Q: Ada naytakan butir-butir /hd itu ke dalam ini?
A: Ya. Ada disebutkan sebuah hard disk jenama Seagate dan no. sirinya.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kepada P77. Boleh bagitau mahkamah apa dokumen ini?
A: Ini adalah juga senarai pemeriksaan.

Q: Untuk?
A: Untuk rampas sebuah hard disk.

Q: Di mana?
A: Di pejabat pengurus kondo.

Q: Ada dinayatakan nama model dan siri nombornya?
A: Ya, ada dinyatakan sebuah hard disk jenama Western Dingital dan serial numbernya.

Q: Dalam P77, ada tak tandatangan kamu dan En. Aris?
A: Ya, ada tandatangan saya dan En. Aris.

MY: YA, P76 dan P77 dicamkan sebgaai dokumen yang telah dikeluarkan berkaitan kedua-dua rampasan hard disk di guard house dan pejabat pengurusan Kondominium Desa Damansara.

Q: Apa yang kamu buat kepada kedua-dua hard disk ini?
A: Selepas saya menerima hard disk ini, saya telah balik ke pejabat dan kedua-dua hard disk disimpan di dalam cabinet besi dan dikunci.

Q: Ada buat apa-apa tandaan pada hard disk ini?
A: Ya, sya ada buat tandaan ke atas kedua-dua ini.

Q: Tanda apa?
A: Iaitu “HD1” ke atas hard disk di guard house dan “HD2” pada hard disk yang dirampas di pejabata pengurusan.

Q: Selain tandaan itu, ada apa-apa lagi yang kamu buat?
A: Saya telah catitkan tandatangan saya dan tarikh rampasan di atas hard disk tersebut.

MY: Saya merujuk saksi kepada P68C dan P67C. Itu kemudianlah.

Q: Selepas kamu simpan kedua-dua hard disk di dalam cabinet besi, ada apa-apa lagi yang kamu lakukan?
A: …

Q: Berkaitan eksibit-eksibit yang kamu ambil di Kondominium Desa Damansara seperti carpet dan duvet?
A: Pada 01.07.2008 jam 3.30 p.m. saya telah buka cabinet besi saya dan keluarkan eksibit-eksibit yang saya telah terima di kondo berkenaan dan buat tandaan iaitu sehelai bulu yang saya terima yg didapati di unit 11-5-1 saya telah masukkan dalam satu envelope yang saya tandakan “A” dan saya telah seal dengan seal Polis Di-Raja Malaysia 330. Satu Chinese silk carpet yang dijumpai di unit 11-5-2 saya juga telah  letakkan seal pdrm 330 pada bungkusan yang sama yang saya terima, yang Supt. Amidon rampas.

Q: Capet ini apa tanda?
A: Tanda “A1”.

Q: Kemudian?
A: Duvet saya tanda “A2” dan saya seal dengan cop PDRM 330. Satu seluar panjang warna hitam biru saya masukkan dalam sampul dan tandakan “A3”. Sehelai baju kemeja lengan panjang jenama Ralph Lauren warna biru juga saya telah masukkan dalam satu envelope yang saya tanda “A4” dan seal dengan PDRM 330. Seterusnya satu helai seluar dalam warna biru jenama Levi’s yg saya masukkan dalam envelope yang syaa tanda “A5” dan seal dengan Polis Di-Raja Malaysia 330. Seterusnya satu helai seluar dalam warna kelabu jenama Levi’s saya masukkan ke dalam enevelope “A6” dan seal dengan PDRM 330. Kemudiaannya satu helai baju lengan panjang warna hijau jenama G2000 saya masukkan ke dalam envelope yang saya tanda “A7” dan seal dengan Polis Di-Raja Malaysia 330.

Q: Semua eksibit A-A7 ini, ada dicatatkan kandungannya?
A: Ya, saya ada catatkan kandungan di luar envelope.

Q: Apa yg kamu buat setelah membungkus dan catatkan kandungannya dan seal?
A: Pada 4.45 petang, saya telah menyerahkan kesemua barangan yang saya tandakan tadi “A”-“A7” kepada Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.

Q: Kepada Jabatan Kimia Malaysia atau orang?
A: Kepada  Dr. Seah Lay Hong.

Q: Ada terima resit penerimaan?
A: Ya, saya telah terima satu akaun terima dari Dr. Seah Lahy Hong.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kpd P51. Adakah ini resit penerimaan yg kamu terima dari Dr. Seah?
A: Benar, ini adalah surat akuan terima dari Dr. Seah Lay Hong.

P51 dicamkan.

Q: Slps itu, kita berbalik kepada hard disk tadi, P67C dan P68C. Saya mohon saksi melihat P68C dan P67C. Boleh camkan adakah ini kedua-dua hard disk yang kamu rampas atau ambil dari pejabat pengurusan dan guard house di Kondominium Desa Damansara?
A: Saya cam tandatangan dan tarikh yang telah saya buat pada hard disk “HD2” dan pada “HD1”.

Q: Tengok P76 dan P77, sama tak no siri dan modelnya?
A: Benar. Siri nombor adalah sama seperti mana P77 untuk “HD2”.

Q: P76?
A: No siri sama dengan yang ada dalam borang rampasan iaitu “HD1”.

Q: Selepas ambil kedua-dua hard disk, apa yang pihak kondo guna untuk ganti hard disk ini?
A: Supt. Fadzil telah uruskan supaya kedua-dua hard disk diklon.

Q: Apa tindakan kamu terhadap kedua-dua hard disk ini?
A: Saya telah membungkus kedua-dua hard disk ini.

Q: Pada 03.07.2008, ada kamu serahkan ini kepada C.Insp Fauziah di Makmal Forensic Polis Di-Raja Malaysia Cheras untuk dianalisa?
A: Ya, pada 10.15 pagi 03.07.2008 saya telah menyerahkan kedua-dua hard disk yang bertanda “HD1” dan “HD2” ini kepada C.Insp Fauziah.

Q: Ada kamu keluarkan borang serah menyerah dan tandatangan dengan Fauziah?
A: Ya, borang serah menyerah dikeluarkan dan ditandatangani oleh Pn. Fauziah dan saya.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kepada P64. Adakah ini borang yang kamu maksudkan?
A: Ya, ini adalah borang serah menyerah.

P64 dicamkan sebagai borang serah menyerah untuk hard disk P67C dan P68C.

Q: Berkaitan dengan eksibit-eksibit yang telah kamu hantar kepada Dr. Seah iaitu specimen dan eksibit yang kamu hantar di mana berkaitan penerimaannya iaitu P51, adakah kamu menerimanya kembali daripada Dr. Seah bersama-sama laporan?
A: Pada 07.07.2008 pukul 11.30 pg, saya telah terima kesemua barangan tersebut yang saya  hantar kepada Dr. Seah pada 30.06.2088 iaitu “A-A7” dan “B- B11”.

Q: Adakah kamu juga terima laporan kimia berhubung 2 set eksibit ini?
A: Ya, saya telah terima satu laporan kimia berhubungkiat dnegan semua eksibit ini.

Q: Saya mohon supaya saksi dirujuk kepada P25.
A: Ini adalah laporan kimia yang saya terima daripada Dr. Seah Lay Hong.

Q: Itu adalah pada 07.07.2008?
A: Ya.

Q: Berkaitan dengan eksibit yang kamu terima daripada Amidon, apa yang kamu buat pada eksibit tersebut? Yang ambil di kondo di unit 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2?
A: Kesemua eksibit ini yang saya terima dari Dr. Seah Lay Hong…
MY: Bukan. Maksud saya eksibit dari kondo seperti bulu…

Q: Pada 16.07.2008, adakah kamu membuat tangkapan pada Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim?
A: Ya, Supt.Taufik telah membuat tangkapan terhadap Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q: Adakah waran tangkap dikeluarkan untuk tangkapan ini?
A: Ya, satu waran tangkap telah dikeluarkan.

Q: Bila waran tangkap dipohon dan dikeluarkan?
A: Saya memohon waran tangkap ini pada 15.07.2008. saya pohon rujuk pada ID saya. Pada 11.15 a.m. saya telah pergi ke mahkamah dan memohon waran tangkap.

Q: Mohon dan dapatkan waran tangkap?
A: Ya.

Q: Bila dilaksanakan?
A: Pada pukul 2.40 ptg. Minta maaf, waran ini dilaksanakn pada 16.07.2008 pada 2.40 petang.

Q: Dilaksanakan oleh Supt. Taufik?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah kamu telah serahkan waran ini?
A: Ya, saya telah serahkan waran ini kepada beliau

Q: Pukul berapa?
A: lebih kurang pukul 2.15 kalau tak silap saya.

Q: Adakah ini Supt. Taufik yang kamu serahkan waran tersebut?
A: Ya, ini adalah Supt Taufik yang mana saya serahkan warrant of arrest.

Supt. Taufik dicamkan.

Q: Di mana kamu serahkan waran ini kepada beliau?
A: Di pejabat D9 di tingkat 7, IPK KL.

Q: Berapa salinan kamu perolehi dari mahkamah?
A: 3 salinan.

Q: Berapa salinan beri pada Taufik?
A: Ketiga-tiga salinan.

Q: Adakah kamu tahu sama ada waran telah dilaksanakan oleh Supt Taufik?
A: Ya, saya tahu.

Q: Bagaimana kamu tahu?
A: Saya lihat belaiu melaksanakan waran tangkap terhadap Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q: Ada terima balik waran tangkap tersebut?
A: Ya, saya telah terima salinan asal waran tersebut.

Q: Di mana?
A: Juda di tingkat 7 di pejabat D9, IPK KL.

Q: Saya ingin merujuk saksi kepada 2 salinan kepada En. Jude. Cuba lihat apakah kedua-dua helai dokumen ini?
A: Kedua-dua dokumen ini adalah waran tangkap yang dilaksanakan terhadap Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q: Adakah ini waran tangkap yang kamu pohon dari mahkamah Jalan Duta pada 11.15 pagi 15.07.2008 dan serahkan pada Taufik?
A: Ya, ini adalah waran tangkap yang saya pohon dari mahkamah dan serahkan kepada Supt. Taufik.

Q: Kamu terima dari mahkamah 3 salinan dan beri 3 salinan kepada Taufik. Berapa salinan yang kamu terima daripada Taufik?
A: 2 salinan.

Q: Cuba lihat belakang itu. Cuba bacakan apa yang tercatit di situ. Sebelum itu, itu  salah satu salinannya?
A: Salinan asal. [baca] Pada 16.07.2008 jam 2.40 petang saya Supt. G/10159 Ahmad Taufek bin Abdullah, telah menyempurnakan waran tangkap ini kepada Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim K/P470810-07-5095 bertempat di Tingkat 7, IPK KL.

Q: Ada tandatangan?
A: Ada tandatangan Supt. Taufik dan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q: Bagaimana kamu tahu bahawa salah satu tandatangan itu adalah tandatangan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim?
A: Saya camkan.

Q: Kamu sudah biasa lihat?
A: Saya lihat semasa saya rakamkan percakapan beliau.

MY: Saya pohon waran tangkap ditanda P85. Ada 2 salinan, satu carbon copy. Untuk tujuan kemudahan, bolehkah kita tandakan P85A untuk yang ada catitan dibelakang dan P85B untuk carbon copy.
Q: Ada bertemu Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim selepas tangkapan dibuat?
A: Ya, saya telah rakam percakapan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q: Pukul berapa kamu merakam percakapan beliau?
A: Saya telah rakam percakapan belaiu pada 16.07.2008 pada jam 2.45 petang.

MY: YA, mohon merujuk saksi kepada satu dokumen asal statement iaitu TWT1.

Q: Cuba lihat dari awal hingga akhir. Adakah ini rakaman percakapan yang dibuat ke atas Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim pada hari itu?
A: Benar.

MY: Saya pohon eksibit ini ditanda sebagai P86.
KS:  YA, I would like it as an ID.
MY:  Ok, ID86.

Q: Sebelum merakamkan percakapan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, ada beliau menanya mengapa beliau ada di situ?
A: Ya, beliau ada menanya mengapa beliau ada di situ.

Q: Apa jawapan kamu?
A: Saya beritahu pada Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim beliau ada di sini kerana ada satu laporan terhadap beliau mengenai satu kejadian meliwat di kondo 11-5-1 oleh seorang lelaki Melayu.

Q: Ada kamu beritahu orang yang mengadu terhadap beliau?
A: Ada.

Q: Ada kamu beritahu di mana perkara itu dilakukan?
A: Ya, saya telah memberitahunya.

Q: Ada kamu beritahu tarikh dan masanya?
A: Ya.

Q: Pada waktu itu semasa merakam percakapan, adakah Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim menyatakan kepada kamu dia tidak tahu kenapa dia ditangkap?
A: Tidak.

Q: Berapa lama rakaman percakapan itu dibuat?
A: Saya pohon rujuk pada ID. Pada  tarikh berkenaan iaitu 16.07.2008, saya telah selesai rakam rakaman percakapan beliau pada 5.45 petang.

Q: Semasa rakaman  percakapan dibuat ada siapa-siapa berada bersama kamu selain Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim ?
A: Ya, ada peguam bernama Sivarasa semasa rakaman percakapan dibuat.

Q: Ada peguam ini mengadu atau menyatakan kepada kamu mereke tidak diberitahu mengapa Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim ditangkap?
A: Tidak.

Q: Selepas tamat merakam percakapan, apa lagi tindakan yang kamu buat berkaitan siastan ini?
A: Saya pohon rujuk pada ID saya. Pada hari yg sama iaitu pada 16.07.2008, lebih kurang 8.30 petang saya telah membawa Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim ke HKL untuk pemeriksaan medical.

Q: Apakah tujuan pemeriksaan itu dibuat?
A: Tujuan pemeriksaan dibuat adalah untuk beliau beri saya satu contoh darah.

Q: Siapa yg memeriksa Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim?
A: Yg memeriksa ialah Datuk Dr. Jayendran.

Q: Ada doctor lain?
A: Dr. Ee Bun Leong.

Q: Selain daripada Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, doctor-doktor tersebut dan kamu, siapa lagi yang pergi ke sana?
A: Peguam iaitu En.Sivarasa.

Q: Adakah Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim memberi contoh darah seperti yang dikehendaki oleh kamu?
A: Tidak.

Q: Ada apa-apa sebab dia berithau mengapa tidak mahu beri?
A: Dia member sebab menyatakan perkara sama akan berlaku seperti mana yang berlaku pada 1998.

Q: Kamu tahu apa yang berlaku pada 1998?
A: Tidak.

Q: Ini dinyatakan atas kehendaknya sendiri atau dinasihatkan oleh sesiapa?
A: Saya lihat beliau ada berhubung dengan seorang peguam dengan menggunakan telefon. Sebaik selepas itu beliau memberitahu doctor beliau tidak mahu memberikan.

Q: Bagaimana dengan Sivarasa?
A: Sivarasa telah berbincang dengan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim juga.

Q: Ada kamu dengar sama ada Sivarasa memberi nasihat?
A: Tidak, saya tidak dengar.

Q: Tapi kamu katakan selepas berhiubung dengan telefon dia katakan tidak.
A: Ya.

Q: Kamu tahu pada masa itu siapa yang beliau hubungi?
A: Tidak tahu.

Q: Selepas pemeriksaan, ke mana Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim di bawa?
A: Sebaik selepas pemeriksaan lebih kurang 10.25 malam Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah di escort semula balik ke IPK di pejabat D9, IPK KL.

Q: Dan?
A: Selepas bawa balik, beliau hendak jumpa beberapa orang di bilik mesyuarat di tingkat 7 itudan setelah beliau berjumpa beberapa orang lebih kurang 11.05 malam, saya bersama-sama DSP Yahya telah escort Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk ditahan di lokap.

Q: Adakah kamu bawa Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim ke lokap?
A: Ya.

Q: Semasa dia ke lokap, adakah dia membawa apa-apa barang lain?
A: Saya lihat beliau telah membawa satu botol air mineral.

Q: Ingat jenisnya?
A: Tak ingat sangat, tapi saya lihat dia bawak botol air mineral Cactus.

Q: Bawa ke dalam lokap?
A: Ya.

Q: Ada beliau ditempatkamn ke dalam sel?
A: Saya tak lihat ke mana botol itu dibawa tapi ke dalam lokap. Saya tak nampak beliau bawa ke dalam sel.

Q: Pada 17.07.2008 jam lebih kurang 12.40 ptg…sebelum itu kamu tahan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim dlm lokap. Kenapa tak lepaskan memandangkan dah habis rekod statement.
A: Saya menahan beliau lagi kerana siasatan saya belum selesai dan selepas balik dari hospital saya ada beberapa soalan kepada beliau oleh itu telah menahan beliau di dalam lokap.

Q: Pukul berapa kamu tahan dia dalam lokap?
A: Pukul 11.05 mlm.

Q: Kenapa tak rekod malam itu juga?
A: Disebabkan sudah lewat dan ada arahn supaya tidak merakam percakapan pada waktu malam.

Q: Arahan IGP atau lock-up rules?
A: Lock-up rules.

Q: Bila Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim dibebaskan?
A: Saya rujuk pada ID saya.

Q: Adakah pada malam itu atau esoknya?
A: Keesokan harinya, 17.07.2008.

Q: Pukul berapa?
A: Pada pukul 9.30 pagi.

Q: Kamu beritahu kamu menahannya lagi kerana kamu ada perkara hendak ditanya. Ada kamu rakam lagi percakapan beliau pada 17.07.2008 pagi?
A: Ya, pada pukul 8.35 pagi saya telah sambung rakaman percakapan beliau.
Q: Sambungan rakaman percakapan ini berkaitan dengan apa?
A: Berkaitan dengan keengganan beliau member darah kepada saya.

Q: Berkenaan pemeriksaan di hospital?
A: Ya.

Q: Pukul berapa tamat rakaman percakapan?
A: Rakaman percakapan tamat lebih kurang 9.20 pagi.

Q: Pada hari yang sama 17.07.2008 lebih kurang 12.40 petang, ada terima apa-apa barang dari Supt. Amidon?
A: Pada 12.40 petang 17.07.2008, saya telah terima daripada Supt. Amidon…saya rujuk pada ID…satu helai bulu, sebatang berus gigi warna putih, sehelai tuala Good Morning dan sebotol air minuman jenama Cactus 500 ml..

Q: Kamu terima barang ini bagaimana?
A: Dia ada bungkus.

Q: Jadi yang kamu terima barangan atau bungkusan?
A: Bungkusan.

Q: Bungkusan tersebut mengandungi bulu, berus gigi, Good Morning towel dan botol air?
A: Ya.

Q: Bagaimana kamu tahu?
A: Ada catatan pada envelope.

Q: Ada tandaan pada envelope?
A: Tiada tanda.

Q: Selepas kamu menerima, ada keluarkan boring penerimaan dan tandatangan bersama Amidon?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kepada P80. Cuba beritahu mahkamah adakah ini borang serah menyerah akuan terimaan yang kamu keluarkan dan tandatangan bersama Amidon berkaitan 4 barang yang kamu sebut tadi?
A: Ya, ini borang serah menyerah yang saya tandatangan dengan Amidon yang mengandungi sehelai bulu di atas lantai di tanda dengan “4”, sebatang berus gigi warna putih di atas lantai ditanda “5”, sehelai tuala warna putih jenama good morning di atas lantai ditanda “6” dan sebotol air mineral jenama Cactus di atas tembok tandas ditanda “7”.

Q: Jadi ada tandalah?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya ingin rujuk saksi kepada ID57 dan kandungannya ID57A. Envelope sahaja. ID58, ID59 dan ID61. Adakah ini envelope yang kamu terima bertanda “4”, “5”, “6” dan “7” yang kemudiannya kamu keluarkan borang serah menyerah yang kamu terima dari Supt. Amidon pada 17.07.2008 jam 12.40 petang?
A: Benar.

MY:  Saya mohon envelope-envelope ini ditandakan sebagai P. Envelope sahaja.
YA: P57, P58, P59,P61.

Q: Di mana Supt. Amidon menyerahkan envelope ini?
A: Di IPK, di tingkat 7, pejabat D9, IPK KL.

Q: Semasa kamu terima envelope-envelope ini, ada seal di envelope?
A: Ya, ada seal Forensik.

Q: Pada ketika itu, adakah seal ini intact, baik?
A: Ya.

Q: Apa yg kamu buat kepada keempat-empat sampul ini yang mengandiungi eksibit yang dicatatkan?

MY:  Sebelum itu, izinkan saya meminta saksi ini menyatakan apa yang tertulis pada envelope-envelope tersebut?

Q: Pada P57, apa catitan di atasnya?
A: P57 dicatitkan sebagai sehelai bulu di atas lantai.

Q: P58?
A: Sebatang berus gigi warna putih di atas lantai.

Q: P59?
A: Seheiai tuala warna putih jenama Good Morning dia ats lantai.

Q: P61?
A: Satu botol air mineral jenama Cactus.

Q: Keempat-empat exhibit ini, P57, P58, P59 dan P61, apa yang kamu buat terhadap kemepat-empat ini?
A: Saya juga telah meletakkan tanda saya iaitu “D”, “D1”, “D2” dan “D3”.

Q: “D” untuk enveople apa?
A: “D” adalah untuk envelope yang mengandungi sehelai bulu di atas lantai. “D1” adalah sebatang berus gigi warna putih, “D2” adalah sehelai tuala berwarna putih jenama Good Morning dan “D3” ialah satu botol air mineral jenama Cactus.

Q: Kemudian?
A: Barang-barang ini saya bawa balik ke pejabat dan seterusnya pafda 3.25 petang saya telah menyimpan barang-barang ini ke dalam cabinet besi saya. Pada 6.50 petang saya telah keluarkan barang-barang ini dari cabinet besi saya dan saya bawa empat barangan kes ini kepada ahli kimia, Puan Siti Aidora di Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.

Q: Siti Aidora ini adakah ahli kimia yang telah camkan kamu tempoh hari?
A: Ya.

Q: Jadi, kamu serahkan keempat-empat envelope yang diberikan oleh Supt. Amidon kepada Siti Aidora hari itu tanpa apa-apa bungkusan?
A: Tiada.

Q: Kamu ada letak seal pada envelope?
A: Ya, syaa letak seal saya pada setiap barang.

Q: Kamu ada letak seal kamu?
A: Ya, seal PDRM.

Q: Seal Amidon?
A: Ya. Seal Forensic.

Q: Apablia kamu serahkan, adakah kamu menerima resit penerimaan daripada Siti Aidora?
A: Ya, ada resit penerimaan.

Q: Rujuk saksi kpd P55. Adaakah ini resit penerimaan keempat-empat envelope yang mengandungi barang-barang yang kamu nayatakan tadi?
A: Ya, ini adalah akuan penerimaan yang saya terima dari Nur Aidora, ahli kimia.

P55 dicamkan.
Q: Adakah kamu menerima semula eksibit-eksibit yang kamu serahkan pada Siti Aidora ini?
A: Saya minta rujuk ID saya semula. Pada 22.07.2008, jam 2.15 ptg, saya telah menerima envelope-envelope ini semua yang saya tanda sebagai “D”-“D3” dari Puan Siti Aidora, ahli kimia.

Q: Dan juga?
A: Laporan kimia.

Q: Saya pohon ID 62 dirujuk untuk tujuan penegcaman. Adakah ini laporan kimia yang kamu terima bersama eksibit-eksibit itu daripada Siti Aidora?
A: Benar.

Q: Kamu terima pada pukul berapa laporan kimia ini?
A: Jam 2.15 ptg pada 22.07.2008.

Q: Selepas kamu terima barang ini dari Puan Nur aidora adakah kamu simpan?
A: Saya simpan semua barang ini dalam peti besi dan saya kunci.

Q: Pada 24.09.2008 jam lebih kurang, adakah kamu menerima apa-apa barang daripada bahagian Forensic PDRM?
A: Ya. Saya menerima 2 buah hard disk yang saya tandakan “HD1” dan “HD2” dari C.Insp Fauziah dari bahagian Forensik PDRM

Q: Adakah ini hard disk yang kamu serahkan sebelum ini?
A: Ya, hard disk yang sama.

Q: Adakah Puan Fauziah yang kamu maksudkan?
A: Ya.

C.Insp Fauziah dicamkan.

Q: Untuk tujuan ini adakah borang serah menyerah dikeluarkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Adakah kamu dan Fauzian tandatangani?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kepada P69. Cuba lihat adakah ini borang serah menyerah “HD1” dan “HD2” yang diserahkan kepada kamu dan kamu terima pada hari itu?
A: Ya.

P69 dicamkan.

Q: Di mana kamu simpan kedua-dua hard disk ini?
A: Kedua-dua hard disk ini saya simpan di dalam cabinet besi saya di pejabat saya.

Q: Berkenaan hard disk adakah kamu melihat rakaman di dalamnya?
A: Pada 9.30 pagi 05.07.2008 saya telah lihat rakaman bersama-sama dengan C.Insp Fauziah.

Q: Rakaman daripada kedua-dua hard disk?
A: Ya.

Q: Kamu tahu sama ada diskdimainkan itu adalah disk yang kamu berikan kepadsa C.Insp. Fauziah atau disk lain? 
A: Saya tak tahu.

Q: Apa tujuan kamu pergi menonton rakaman?
A: Tujuan saya adalah untuk saya lihat siapakah yang masuk ke dalam kondo dan juga lif dan seterusnya ke tingkat 5 tempat kejadia pada 26.06.2008 di antara pukul 12.00-6.00 ptg.

Q: Adakah siapa-siapa individu di dalam rakaman itu yang kamu boleh cam?
A: Pengadu dalam kes ini.

Q: Selain daripada itu?
A: Saya juga camkan Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Q: Ada camkan orang lain?
A: Saya juga camkan beberapa orang yang lain.

Q: Beberapa orang?
A: Ada 5 orang selain Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan pengadu.

Q: Bila saya kata camkan maksudnya yang kamu tengok saja kamu boleh tahu. Ada 5 orang kamu boleh camkan?
A: 5 orang.

Q: Bagaimana kamu cam? Kamu kenal mereka sebelum ini?
A: Saya hanya kenal 1 orang dan yang lain saya camkan bila mainkan rakaman tersebut.

Q: Kenal mereka?
A: Tak kenal.

Q: Pernah jumpa mereka sebelum itu?
A: Tak pernah jumpa.

Q: Kamu tahu nama?
A: Saya tahu nama mereka.

Q: Selain dari itu, apa yang kamu lihat?
A: Saya juga lihat pada kenderaan yang masuk.

Q: Ada kamu target kenderaan-kenderaan tertentu untuk disiasat?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh kamu beritahu apakah nombor kenderaan yang kamu kenalpasti untuk siasat lanjut?
A: WMK 6, WPK 5925, WND 1173 (Perdana), BHA 5476 (Honda Accord), WNK 6238 (Toyota Harrier) dan DAE 5 dan WNK 5251.

Q: Bagi kesemua kereta ini ada semak dengan JPJ siapakah pemilik berdaftar?
A: Ada.

Q: Boleh beritahu mahkamah yang mulia ini nama pemilik berdaftar bagi kenderaan—kenderaan ini?
A: WND 1173 (Perdana) – Malaysian Institute of Economic Research;
BHA 5476 (Honda Accord) – Nik Mahmood b. Nik Hassan;
WMK 6 (MG Rover) – Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim;
WNK 6236 – Omar b. Malek Ali Merican, Chief Operating Officer of Bursa Malaysia;
DAE 5 – Dato’ Nik Mohd Sidek;
WMK 5251 – Deutsch Bank;
WPK 5925 – En. Zaki.

Q: Adakah kamu kesan dan rakam percakapan mereka semua ini?
A: Ya.

Q: Daripada beberpaa nama ini, siapa yang kamu sendiri rakam percakapan?
A: Daripada semua penama yang saya beri saya telah rakamkan percakapan Prof . Datuk Dr. Mohamed Ariff.

Q: Dia guna kereta apa mengikut siasatan kamu?
A: Beliau tekah menggunakan kereta WND 1173  Jenis perdana Hitam.

Q: Individu yang lain siapa yang rakam percakapan?
A: [] dan []

Q: Boleh camkan Prof Ariff jika ditunjukkan kepada kamu?
A: Ya. Ini adalah Prof Datuk Dr.Ohamed Ariff b. Addul Kareem.

Q: Yang menggunakan kereta?
A: Yang menggunakan kereta WND 1173.

Q: Adakah imej Prof Ariff ada di dalam rakaman?
A: Ada.

Q: Apa imej yang kamu camkan tadi?
A: Pengadu, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, dan Prof. Datuk Mohamed Ariff.

Q: Imej En Hasanudin ada dalam rakaaman?
A: Ya.

Q: Yang empat orang ini kamu pasti ada dalam rakaman itu?
A: Ya, saya pasti.

MY:  Just to confirm, nak mainkan rakaman sekejap yang menunjukkan imej Prof. Ariff, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, pengadu, dan En. Hasanudin. Lepas tu dah habis my examination in chief.
YA: Ok, do it.

Q: Jika tunjukkan rakaman, boleh cam?
A: Ya.

YA:  This part dah dibuat gambar, kan?
MY: Ya, dah buat gambar.
YA: So, why we need to go into this?
MY: Saya terlupa ada gambar.

Q: Still photos untuk rakaman yang kamu kenal pasti dengan Fauziah, adakah dibuat?
A: Ya, dibuat.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kepada P71. Lihat dalam gambar ini imej siapa yang kamu boleh cam?
A: Imej Datuk Dr. Ariff dan En. Hasanudin.

Q: Gambar apa itu?
A: Dalam lif.

Q: Gambar apa itu?

YA: Gambar mark apa dalam P71 ini?

Q: Gambar siapa yang kamu boleh cam?
A: Gambar Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim di lif.

Q: Ditandakan sebagai apa?
A: D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, dan M adalah Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan juga En,. Hasanudin.

Q: Gambar L dan M adalah gambar Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan En. Hasanudin?
A: Dan N dan O, gambar yg sama. Dan P dan Q adalah sama. Gambar Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan En. Hasanudin.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kpd P5. Boleh cam gambar siapa di situ?
A: C, C1 adalah Mohd Saiful Bukhari. D, D1, E, E1, F, F1 adalah Mohd Saiful. G dan G1 saya tak cam.

Q: Dalam itu ada gambar Saiful?
A: Ya.

Q: Saya rujuk saksi kepada P75. Boleh cam gambar siapa dalam itu?
A: Saya cam A dan B ialah Prof Datuk Mohamed Ariff dan En. Hasanudin, C juga, E&F juga sama.  G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R hanya Prof. Datuk Mohamed Arif.

MY: Ya, pada peringkat ini saya tiada soalan lain cuma saya ingin membawa perhatian YA kepada ID86. Sebenarnya apa yang ingin saya kemukakan untuk tujuan rekod ialah 4 muka surat pertama, tidak termasuk actual statement.
YA:  Sama sepert TWT dulu? Pages yang sama?  
MY:  Ya. Sebab yang lain tu content and we are not []/
YA:  It is still ID, kan?
MY: Yes, ID. 
YA: Cross?
KS:  It remains as ID. We are objecting to it.
YA: Yes, they are putting it as ID. So, cross?
KS: We need some times. Perhaps tomorrow moring?
YA: No. We start at 2.30 p.m.
KS: Tomorrow morning if possible, YA.
YA: 2.30 p.m. la. How long? Tomorrow is Firday. So we start petang ini and if tak habis…
KS: I can finish it in the morning. But for now I have certain things to discuss with my learned friend.
YA: Never mind. Start at 2.30 p.m.
[12.11 p.m.] Stand down.

Pihak-pihak masuk ke dalam Kamar Hakim.
Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.

Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung bicara pada esok hari, 11 Mac 2011.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 9 Mac 2011 March 12, 2011

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

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

PP: Semua hadir
PB: KS, SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy
AI hadir.

MY:    YA, kes untuk sambung bicara. Pendakwaan akan memanggil saksi kami yang ke 22.

SP22: Ahmad Humaizi bin Awang
SP22 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.
Ketua Unit Rekod di bahagian Pendaftaran JPJ, Kuala Lumpur, berumur 34 tahun.

EIC SP22 oleh Tuan Hanafiah

Q:    Sejak bila Encik bertugas sebagai Ketua Unit Rekod JPJ KL?
A:    2004.

Q:    Apakah peranan anda sebagai Ketua Unit Rekod?
A:    Bertanggungjawab ke atas rekod-rekod dan fail kenderaan yang di daftarkan di JPJ KL.

Q:    Adakah Encik juga bertanggungjawab bagi urusan pengendalian komputer di JPJ KL?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Komputer tersebut adakah dalam perjalanan penggunaan biasa di JPJ?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Boleh anda beritahu berkenaan dengan pemilikan dan penggunaan sesuatu kenderaan di Malaysia? Apakah keperluan bagi seseorang yang hendak mengguna atau memiliki sesuatu kenderaan di Malaysia pada

pengetahuan anda?
A:    Untuk kenderaan yang digunakan di Malaysia, kenderaan tersebut mestilah dilesenkan di JPJ KL dan apabila dilesenkan, pihak JPJ akan mengeluarkan satu nombor pendaftaran kenderaan.

Q:    Nombor pendaftaran kenderaan ini adakah JPJ akan simpan rekod daftar?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Ada undang-undang yang digunakan untuk JPJ menyimpan rekod daftar kenderaan yang didaftarkan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Itu untuk pendaftaran baru?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Sekiranya sesiapa mahu tukar milik kenderaan tersebut, apa keperluannya?
A:    Perlu diisi borang pertukaran hak milik iaitu borang JPJ A3 di antara pemilik lama dan pemilik baru.

Q:    Berkenaan dengan nombor pendaftaran kenderaan tersebut,  adakah keperluan untuk diperagakan dan dipamerkan pada kenderaan?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Di bahagian depan dan belakang?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Semasa Encik bertugas sebagai Ketua Unit Rekod JPJ Kuala Lumpur, adakah Encik boleh akses kepada pendaftaran kereta bagi negeri Selangor dan Kelantan?
A:    Ya, untuk makluman, system JPJ boleh akses kepada satu negeri, untuk satu Malaysia.

Q:    Ada Encik membawa rekod untuk nombor kenderaan?
A:    Ya, saya ada bawa rekod daripada sistem kenderaan.

Q:    Boleh rujuk kepada nombor pendaftaran WMK 6?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Boleh Encik beritahu kepada siapa nombor ini didaftarkan?
A:    Berdasarkan rekod JPJ, kenderaan ini didaftarkan atas penama Anwar bin Ibrahim.

Q:    Nombor pengenalan beliau?
A:    470810-07-5095.

Q:    Apakah jenis kenderaan tersebut?
A:    Audi Wald WAA6 (A).

Q:    Warna?
A:    Biru.

Q:    Adakah berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas didaftarkan? Sebelum itu, bila kenderaan ini didaftarkan?
A:    Pada 25.7.2008.

Q:    Berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas didaftarkan?
A:    Berdasarkan rekod JPJ, tiada. Hanya seorang penama sahaja.

Q:    Kenderaan WMK 6, sebelum itu adakah diberi nomber pendaftaran lain?
A:    Sebelum ini, nombor pendaftaran kenderaan ini bernombor WRQ 2741.

Q:    Bila pertukaran nombor pendaftaran ini berlaku?
A:    Proses pertukaran nombor pendaftaran berlaku pada 25.7.2008.

Q:    Jadi, nombor WMK 6 ini sebelum itu didaftarkan ke atas kenderaan jenis apa?
A:    Jenis MG Rovers model 75U86A berwarna hitam.

Q:    Milik siapa kenderaan ini?
A:    Anwar bin Ibrahim.

Q:    Ada Encik bawa rekod untuk WPK 5925?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Siapakah pemilik berdaftar kenderaan tersebut?
A:    Mohd Zaki bin Muhammad, no. kad pengenalan: 540903-11-5181.

Q:    Bila ia didaftarkan?
A:    10.7.1997

Q:    Apakah jenis dan buatan kereta serta warna kereta ini?
A:    Fiat Ulysse, warna merah.

Q:    Berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas didaftarkan?
A:    Mempunyai beberapa pemilikan sebelum Mohd Zaki iaitu 3 pemilik.

Q:    Selepas 10.7.1997?
A:    Pada 10.7.1997 dimiliki oleh Encik Zulkifli bin Zainal Abidin sehingga 23.11.1999. Pada 23.11.1999 kenderaan ini dimiliki oleh Encik Zaki bin Mohd.

Q:    Ada lagi pertukaran milik selepas itu?
A:    Syaridah Hamisah binti Jaafar, bermula pada 11.9.2006.

Q:    Ada lagi pertukaran hak milik selepas itu?
A:    Pada 20.9.06, kepada pemilik sekarang iaitu Mohd Zaki bin Muhammad.

Q:    Ada Encik bawa rekod untuk kenderaan bernombor WND 1173 hari ini?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Siapa pemilik  berdaftar bagi kenderaan tersebut?
A:    Malaysian Institute of Economic Research.

Q:    Bila didaftar?
A:    28.7.2005

Q:    Apakah jenis buatan, model dan warna kenderaan ini?
A:    Proton Perdana V6 Automatik, warna maroon.

Q:    Selepas itu, ada pertukaran hak milik?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Ada Encik bawa rekod untuk WNK6238?
A:    Ya. Pemilik berdaftar ialah Omar bin Malek Ali Merican, kad pengenalan 590328-10-6793.

Q:    Bilakah ianya didaftarkan?
A:    20.10.2005

Q:    Apakah jenis, buatan, model dan warna kenderaan tersebut?
A:    Toyota Harrier MCU36(A), warna hitam.

Q:    Selepas didaftarkan, ada berlaku pertukaran hak milik?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Ada Encik bawa rekod kenderaan WMK5251?
A:    Ada. Pemilik berdaftar ialah Chan Wai Hung, nombor kad pengenalan  620403-10-6553.

Q:    Bilakah tarikh pendaftaran?
A:    30.12.2004.

Q:    Apakah jenis model dan buatan?
A:    Buatan BMW, 525 I (A), warna biru.

Q:    Adakah berlaku apa-apa pertukaran hak milik selepas ianya didaftarkan?
A:    Ada satu pemilikan sebelumnya iaitu [] Bank Malaysian Berhad.

Q:    Bila tarikh milikannya?
A:    Pada 30.12.2004 sehingga 8.12.2010.

Q:    Dan bila didaftar atas nama Chan Wai Hong?
A:    Pada 8.12.2010 sehingga sekarang.

Q:    Bawa rekod untuk DAE 5?
A:    Ada. Pemilik berdaftar adalah Nik Mohd Sidek bin Nik Abu Bakar, kad pengenalan 430325-03-5093.

Q:    Bilakah ianya didaftarkan?
A:    17.9.1997.

Q:    Buatan dan model?
A:    Porsche Boxter berwarna perak.

Q:    Adakah berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas pendaftaran kenderaan ini?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Ada bawa rekod untuk kenderaan BHA 5476?
A:    Ada. Pemilik berdaftar adalah Ching Thiam Soon. Kad pengenalan 880714-10-5575.

Q:    Tarikh pendaftaran kenderaan itu?
A:    12/12/2003

Q:    Buatan dan model?
A:    Honda Accord 2.4L I-VTEC, berwarna emas.

Q:    Apakah berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas ianya didaftarkan?
A:    Terdapat pemilik lain sebelum penama di atas, iaitu di atas nama Nik Mahmud bin Nik Hassan.

Q:    Bila kenderaan tersebut didaftarkan atas nama Nik Mahmud?
A:    Bermula tarikh 12.12.2003 sehingga 27.12.2010.

Q:    Bila ia ditukarkan kepada hak milik Ching Thiam Soon?
A:    Kenderaan ini ditukar hak milik kepada Ching Thiam Soon pada 27.12.2010.

Q:    Ada berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas itu?
A:    Tiada.

MH:    Itu sahaja soalan pihak pendakwa.

KS:    Tiada soalan untuk cross.

MY:    Seterusnya, pihak pendakwaan akan  memanggil Doktor Razuin sebagai SP 23.

SP 23: Doktor Razuin binti Rahimi,
Forensic Pathologist at Hospital Sungai Buluh, age 37 years old.
SP 23 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q:    What are you at Hospital Sungai Buluh.
A:    Forensic pathologist.

Q:    When did you join Hospital Sungai Buluh?
A:    Since June 2010.

Q:    Prior to that?
A:    Prior that, I was attached to University Malaya Medical Center and Hospital Kuala Lumpur

Q:    Your designation?
A:    Master medical officer.

Q:    In June 2008, were you at HKL?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Can you tell the court what were your duties in HKL in July 2008?
A:    I was a medical officer attached to the department of forensic medicine.

Q:    What were you do as a medical officer?
A:    So we do our core business which is most of the time, post mortem examination.

Q:    28 June, where were you around 6 pm?
A:    I was at home.

Q:    Were you at that time, received information or anything from the hospital?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What was informed to you and by whom?
A:    I was informed by a medical officer in Emergency Department of HKL about an alleged sodomy case.

Q:    Were you told who was involved?
A:    At that time, during the telephone call, I was only informed that it involved a well known political figure in the country.

Q:    Was any name mentioned then?
A:    At that time, no.

Q:    Exactly, what time did you received the call?
A:    I received the call twice from the emergency. First, around 3.30 p.m, the second one was around 7.30pm.

Q:    What was the call at 3.30 pm were about?
A:    At that time, they informed me about an alleged sodomy case, however to my understanding at that time, the police report has not being lodged. So my advice to them was to lodge a police report first.

Q:    After you have been informed around 7.30 pm, about this case and then a well known personality was involved, then what did you do?
A:    I called the specialist in charge which was Dr. Siew Sheue Feng.

Q:    After that?
A:    He asked me to come to HKL first.

Q:    Any particular place in the Hospital he asked you to come to?
A:    I went to OSCC at Emergency Department.

Q:    Roughly what time did you arrive at OSCC?
A:    Approximately at 8.30 p.m.

Q:    Upon arrival, did you meet anybody there?
A:    Yes, DSP Jude Pereirra.

Q:    Can you identify him? Is this DSP Jude that you mentioned just now?
A:    Yes.

DSP Jude dicamkan.

Q:    Did anything transpired between both of you?
A:    Yes, he briefed me about the case.

Q:    Roughly what did he brief you?
A:    He informed me that this is an alleged sodomy case involving Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan and DSAI.

Q:    Was this Saiful present at that time?
A:    When DSP Jude briefed me, he wasn’t present.

Q:    Did you at any time see him? I mean Saiful?
A:    After that, DSP Jude introduced him to me.

Q:    After being introduced to Mohd Saiful, what did you do?
A:    Then I informed DSP Jude that I will take history from Saiful.

Q:    Can you identify him?
A:    Yes.

Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan dicamkan.

Q:    You said you informed Jude that you want to take the history from Saiful. Did you proceed to do that? Where?
A:    Yes, in the OSCC room.

Q:    Briefly, what Saiful told you in the course of history taking with regard to this allegation?
A:    I was informed that he has been sodomised by DSAI a few times. And the latest incident took place on 26.6.08 at approximately 3.15 pm at Kondominium Desa Damansara.

KS:    At this stage, we object to the evidence given in the earlier instance YA. In fact, the report had been expunged with regard to that.
MY:    YA, if I may, let the witness say and YA can exclude after that because this is what had been told to her. She cannot change that.

KS:    But the word had been expunged and it is admissible. I think that is elementary.
YA:    Just expunge the word ‘few times’.
KS:    I mean now, YA. Not later.
YA:    Yes, it is excluded.

Q:    What else he told you? Was he a willing partner?
A:    No he was not.

Q:    What did he tell you actually? Did he consent to it or what?
A:    He said he did not consent to it.

Q:    Then? Just tell whatever important that he told you with regard to the allegation.
A:    So basically he informed me about the incident that took place on 26.6.2008. So he was [] by DSAI and even though he was unwilling but it still occurred and I asked him about the intercourse basically for i.e. whether

there was penetration, oral sex, lubricant used such things.

Q:    What did he tell you? Was there any penetration?
A:    Yes there was.

Q:    Was there any ejaculation?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Was there any lubricant used?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What else?
A:    He informed me that DSAI also fondled with his breasts and the event occurred for about half an hour.

Q:    Any oral sex?
A:    According to Saiful Bukhari, it was attempted but he refused.

Q:    How long does this interview last?
A:    For about 20 minutes.

Q:    What time does it started?
A:    Roughly around 9 p.m

Q:    At the time when you interviewed Saiful, was Dr. Siew there?
A:    No.

Q:    Did he come after that?
A:    He came in later.

Q:    Was he alone when he came?
A:    No, he came in with two other specialists, Dr. Mohd Razali and Dr. Khairul Nizam.

Q:    And Dr. Razali was?
A:    He was a surgeon at HKL.

Q:    Dr. Khairul Nizam?
A:    Emergency Case specialist.

Q:    So by the time they came, was the interview over?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What did you do after that?
A:    I briefed the 3 doctors about the case, and I also showed Dr. Siew on a clinical forensic examination draft.

Q:    Can you give more specific answer? Did you wrote down on a blank piece of paper of what? Or form?
A:    The pro forma.

Q:    Now, when you briefed them (the 3 doctors) about Saiful what he told you, then what took place after that?
A:    Then 3 doctors interviewed him again

Q:    Were you present?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Did you hear what he told the doctors?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Was there any difference from what he told you and what did he tell the doctors?
A:    No.

Q:    Then after the interview of history taking, what did the doctor do?
A:    Then we started with physical examination.

Q:    Were you present?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What was your role in this examination?
A:    My role was to assist Dr. Siew in jotting down and taking notes.

Q:    Be more specific.
A:    I have to take notes of the history, as well as the physical examination findings.

Q:    This note of examination that you took down, did you write in the pro forma that you told earlier?
A:    No.

Q:    Why?
A:    That is because initially I filled in pro forma and then when I showed to Dr Siew, he thought that the pro forma was not suitable, and later we proceeded on jot down everything on blank sheet of paper.

Q:    So the documentation that you did after the examination was all done on a blank sheet of paper?
A:    Yes.

Q:    After you did everything, what did you do with this sheet of paper?
A:    I handed everything to Dr. Siew.

Q:    What about the pro forma?
A:    That includes the pro forma.

Q:    YA, at this juncture, may this witness be referred to the pro forma, D 28.  Can you have a look at this document: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In particular the signature in page 6, 5, 3 and the handwriting on top there, and all the

handwriting in this document up to page 6. Whose signatures are those?
A:    Mine.

Q:    Ok, now look at the handwriting. First at page 3. Can you tell whose handwriting there?
A:    It was my handwriting except for the part of the police officer’s name, i/c number and police station.

Q:    This is not your handwriting?
A:    No. It was DSP Jude’s handwriting.

Q:    Now at page 5, [read] whose handwriting is there?
A:    Mine.

Q:    All this that appeared here that need to be fill and circled, who did all this?
A:    I did.

Q:    What about page 6, the circle there? And there also employer. Whose handwriting and whose circled the particular answer. Who did that?
A:    I did.

Q:    So can you confirm that this is the pro forma that you filled in, except for the part filled by Jude that you told the court just now, which was you later handed this form to Dr. Siew?
A:    Yes.

Q:    I refer you to page 5 now at para 1.5, if force and violence was used, then it was circled no. And then, did she put up resistance, you said yes. Was this given by Saiful during the interview when you asked him regarding

the alleged sodomy?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Exactly what did he told you?
A:    He told me that he was unwilling and his body became tense.

Q:    That’s all?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Now, at para 1.6 under the heading ‘details of the act’, you circled oral attempted, and then the answer you put yes. Can you explain to the court?
A:    It means that based on what Saiful told me, oral sex was attempted however it did not happen.

Q:    Can you be more specific?
A:    According to him, he was asked but he refused.

Q:    Now, the next two lines, rectal attempted/performed ejaculation, the answer is yes. So what does it mean?
A:    To my understanding, sodomy is anal intercourse. Hence, anatomically speaking, rectum is located above the anus.  So this line, the word is confusing because I do not know at that moment in time, whether penetration

did reach rectum. If the word given here is anal attempted or performed, then I would have circled performed.

Q:    So now you said as far as you concern there was anal penetration but you are not sure whether or not it reach rectum.
A:    Yes.

Q:    What about ejaculation?
A:    Yes, according to Saiful Bukhari, he ejaculated inside.

Q:    So you circled?
A:    Ejaculation yes, rectal attempted also yes.

Q:    Meaning there was ejaculation?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Now, under subheading what was used, penis you circled yes, and penetration full. Where did you get this information?
A:    From Saiful Bukhari.

Q:    And then the rest is what he told you also. Any pain yes, bleeding yes, number of assailant, was any drug used: no, alcohol: no. But there was no mentioned about lubricant? Why? Because the form doesn’t state it?
A:    Yes.

KS:    YA, my learned friend is leading the witness.
MY:    Because she had mentioned about lubricant earlier.

YA:    Proceed.
Q:    The form didn’t mention about that, any reason?

A:    This is supposed to be the medical form for rape victim. That is why after I showed the pro forma to Dr. Siew, and he thought this pro forma is not suitable.

Q:    At para 1.7, under the heading ‘identity of the assailant’, it was circled he was known to him. The answer you circled is yes. Ethnic: Malay and relationship: employer. This employer refer to the assailant?
A:    Yes.

Q:    1.8 – did she change clothes after the incident, the circle is yes. That was told to you?
A:    Yes.

MY:    That would be all My Lord.

Cross- examination by Karpal Singh.

Q:    Dr. Razuin, you are here to tell the truth. Are you aware that you are here to tell the truth?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Have you taken the hypocratic oath?
A:    Yes.

Q:    So, double now?
A:    I am sorry, I did not really understand.

Q:    Double means, the hypocratic oath plus the oath just now? More so that you have to tell the truth?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Was any statement taken from you in the course of the investigation taken by the police?
A:    Yes

Q:    When was it?
A:    I couldn’t recall now.

Q:    Taken by Supt. Jude?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Did Supt. Jude gone through the statement with you lately?
A:    No.

Q:    He did not go through with this statement with you?
A:    No.

Q:    No [] regarding your statement?
A:    Not lately.

Q:    All right, when was it then?
A:    It was when he came to my hometown to get my statement.

Q:    That was the first time?
A:    That was the second time.

Q:    When was the second time and first time?
A:    The first statement is Jan 2010, the second one was around 3 weeks ago, I am still on my confinement.

Q:    So 3 weeks ago your statement was taken?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Did he told you why he wanted to take second statement?
A:    Yes, it was regarding the pro forma.

Q:    You said nothing about the pro forma in the first statement?
A:    I did not say anything about the pro forma in the first statement.

Q:    This pro forma was for what purpose?
A:    This pro forma was actually for clinical forensic cases.

Q:    For rape, and none for sodomy?
A:    At that time, the HKL forensic department does not have pro forma for sodomy.

Q:    You are responsible for everything filled in here isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You signed on most of the pages?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And you personally filled up the form?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Let me take you to page 5. On top of the page, you put there alleged sodomy?
A:    Yes.

Q:    1.6, oral attempted. Whether in English language it means oral sexual attempted?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Rectal attempted in normal term would mean sodomy isn’t it?
A:    Normal term will be anal sex.

Q:    Rectal sex would amount to sodomy?
A:    I don’t agree.

Q:    What is sodomy?
A:    Sodomy to my understanding is anal intercourse.

Q:    Slightest penetration on the rectal would be anal intercourse isn’t it? Slightest penetration would be rape isn’t it?
A:    Slightest penetration through the anus would be sodomy.

Q:    Rectal would be sodomy in normal term?
A:    I still do not agree.

Q:    What is rectum? Rectum is not part of the anus?
A:    No.

Q:    What is the difference between rectum and anus?
A:    Anus situated below. Rectum is above the anus.

Q:    So sodomy would be an introduction of [] to the anus. To get to the anus we must go through the rectum?
A:    Yes.

Q:    So that would be sodomy isn’t it? You are here to tell the truth. That would amount to anal intercourse? English language?

YA:    But here it doesn’t talk about anus, it talks about rectal.
KS:    Yes, but she said rectum is part on the above of the anus.
MY:    Leave this to submission.
KS:    No, I’m asking YA. This is an English language.
YA:    We are not here to learn English.
KS:    But whatever written here is in English. Therefore she must answer the question.

Q:    All right, rectum is above the anus?
A:    Yes.

Q:    For sodomy, you must go through the anus?
A:    You have to go through the anus but not necessarily to reach the rectum.

Q:    But it will still be a sodomy?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What you stated is rectal attempted?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Was there any bleeding?
A:    According to Saiful Bukhari, there was bleeding for the first and second time.

MY:    I thought they don’t want this evidence?
YA:    But they want it.
KS:    I’m asking before it is stated here.

Q:     On 28, but not 26th?
A:    Yes.

Q:    There is not for the second time?
A:    YA, I will like to explain or elaborate a little about the form.

YA:    Takpe you can elaborate later when the needs arrived. You will be question by DPP if they think that it is necessary. But now, just answer what Mr. Karpal ask you.

Q:    So this was on 28th?
A:    I filled the form on 28th.

Q:    He said there was bleeding on 26th?
A:    No.

Q:    He didn’t say that there is bleeding on 26th?
A:    According to the history given…

Q:    There was no bleeding on 26th?
A:    There was no bleeding on the 26th…

KS:    That would be all, YA.

MY:    I have no re. May this witness be release.
MY:    YA, saksi pendakwaan yang ke 24 ialah Encik Ibrahim bin Yaakob.

SP24: Encik Ibrahim bin Yaakob
Chief staff of DSAI’s office, age: 59 years old.
SP24 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q:    You are the Chief of Staff of DSAI?
A:    Yes.

Q:    In 2008, you were also the Chief of Staff?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Where was your office then on June 2008?
A:    Section 16 PJ.

Q:    In June 2008, did you have an employee by the name of Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan?
A:    He is not an employee, he was a temporary volunteer.

Q:    He’s not officially employed, but he worked in the office?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What were his duties then?
A:    He was a general office worker.

Q:    So what did he do?
A:    Well I’d send him on errands. That’s about it lah.

Q:    []
A:    Not really.

Q:    Other than you, were he get instruction from anybody else?
A:    No, he has to take instruction from me.

Q:    If somebody else gives instruction to Saiful, would you know?
A:    Yes, I will know.

Q:    If DSAI gave instruction to him?
A:    Usually DSAI would CC to me.

Q:    If he gave direct oral instruction, would you know?
A:    Usually he would SMS or e mail me.

Q:    Can you identify Saiful, this is just for the sake of formality.
A:    Yes.

Saiful Bukhari dicamkan.

Q:    On the 26th of June, were you working at the office at Sec 16?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What about Saiful?
A:    Yes he came in.

Q:    What about DSAI?
A:    Dato’ Seri came in earlier.

Q:    That day, did DSAI had any meeting?
A:    Yes. The meeting was held at the apartment of Hasanuddin, in Damansara. I know where it is, but I can’t tell the address.

Q:    Do you know what kind of meeting?
A:    Luncheon talks with fellow mates together with Prof. Arif.

Q:    Now, you remember what time he left for the meeting?
A:    Around 11.45a.m to 12 pm.

Q:    That day, after DSAI left, did he call you about anything?
A:    Yes, he called around 12.15-12.30, to say that he left an envelope on his table.

Q:    And he needed that for the meeting?
A:    Yes.

Q:    So what did you do?
A:    I was quite busy, so the only person in the office was Saiful, and I said to him please deliver this thing to DSAI.

Q:    Did Saiful carry out your instruction?
A:    As far as I concern, he left the office, yes with the envelope.

Q:    Was the envelope carried by him just like that, or he put in any bag?
A:    I gave to him in the envelope, where he put it, I’m not sure.

Q:    Did you know how he delivered the documents to DSAI?
A:    He drove.

Q:    Did you know what car that he drove?
A:    I don’t know what model, but it is MPV, color maroon.

Q:    Was it his car?
A:    I believe no.

Q:    Now, is Saiful still working at the office today?
A:    No, he left, he tendered his letter on 27th if I’m not mistaken, through email.

Q:    Did he give reasons why he wants to quit?
A:    Yes, actually he e-mailed to Dato’ Seri, and Dato’ Seri ‘cc’ to me. He said he was not adequate and cannot perform the duties.

Q:    Upon receiving this thing, was there any attempt make to ask him to stay?
A:    Well, the thing is he said he wanted to leave because he wants to be a pilot, and since he was willing to leave, so be it. So there was no attempt made to make him stay.

MY:    YA, that would be all.
KS:    No question for cross.

MY:    YA, I’ll be calling the IO next. But before that, can I ask the court to stand down for a while. I think both of us would like to see YA in chamber.
[10.16 a.m]    Stand down.
[10.19 a.m]    Kedua-dua pihak berjumpa YA dalam chamber.
[10.28 a.m]    Kedua-dua pihak keluar dari chamber.
(Kes akan disambung pada pukul 9.00 pagi keesokan harinya untuk keterangan saksi pendakwaan ke 25, DSP Jude Pereira.)

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 8 Mac 2011 March 11, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in 1Malaysia.
add a comment

Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah
PP :     Semua hadir kecuali MM
PB:    KS, SN, Ram Karpal, Datuk CV Prabhakaran, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy (Marissa dan Radzlan tidak hadir).
AI hadir

[10.11 a.m.]

MY:    Kes ditetapkan untuk hujahan balas oleh KS.

KS:    It is the submission of the learned DPP that R v Payne [1963] 1 WLR 637, a 1980 authority, is the only instance in which the court exercised discretion to exclude evidence illegally obtained. However, if the facts in Payne are scrutinized carefully, what emerges is that it was by trick that the evidence there was obtained. The facts of the case as set out in the headnotes are as follows:-

‘Following a car collision, the defendant was taken to a police station and was there asked if he was willing to be examined by a doctor. It was made clear to him that the purpose of the examination was to see if he was suffering from any illness or disability and that it was no part of the doctor’s duty to examine him in order to give an opinion as to his fitness to drive. The defendant then agreed to the doctor’s examination. At the defendant’s trial on charges of driving a car while unfit to drive through drink, the doctor gave evidence for the prosecution to the effect that the defendant was under the influence of drink to such an extents as to be unfit to drive. The defendant was convicted’

On appeal against his conviction, the Court of Appeal held, ‘that had the defendant realized that the doctor would give evidence as to his fitness or unfitness to drive, he might have refused to allow himself to be examined and accordingly, although the doctor’s evidence was admissible, the chairman, in the exercise of his discretion, should have refused to allow it to be given, and therefore the appeal would be allowed and the conviction quashed.’

Lord Parker CJ adverted to and adopted Regina v Court [1962] Crim LR 69, a decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal, when setting out as follows in Payne at page 639:-

‘In Court’s case, this court pointed out that while such evidence from the doctor in circumstances such as these was clearly admissible, nevertheless the chairman in the exercise of his discretion ought to have refused to allow that evidence to be given on the basis that if the defendant realized that the doctor was likely to give evidence on that matter, he might refuse to subject himself to examination.

This present case is, in the opinion of this court, on all fours with Court’s case, and in those circumstances the court is constrained to quash the convictions on counts 1 and 3, and the order for disqualification.’

Clearly, both in Payne and Court, the evidence sought to be adduced had been obtained by deception and trickery.

In our case, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim had the right to refuse to give blood samples for DNA profiling having regard to the proposition set out in Peter James Binsted v. Juvencia Autor Partosa.

In Noor Mohamed v The King [1949] AC 182, Lord de Parcq says at page 192:-

“…in all such cases the judge ought to consider whether the evidence which it is proposed to adduced is sufficiently substantial, having regard to the purpose to which it is professedly directed, to make it desirable in the interest of justice that it should be admitted. If, so far as that purpose is concerned, it can in the circumstances of the case have only trifling weight, the judge will be right to exclude it. To say this is not to confuse weight with admissibility.

The distinction is plain, but cases must occur in which it would be unjust to admit evidence of a character gravely prejudicial to the accused even though there may be some tenuous ground for holding it technically admissible. The decision must then be left to the discretion and the sense of fairness of the judge.’

The abovementioned general pronouncement made in Noor Mohamed had been followed in numerous other cases in England and is entrenched in the principle that the English court upholds, which is, it is ‘a judge’s undoubtedly duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial…’ (per Lord Salmon in R v Sang [1980] AC 402 at page 445.

It is significant to note in R v Sang [1980] AC 402, Lord Salmon adverts to the following passage:-

‘3.    The judge has a discretion to exclude evidence procured, after the commission of the alleged offence, which although technically admissible appears to the judge to be unfair. The classical example of such a case is where the prejudicial effect of such evidence would be out of proportion to its evidential value. Harris v Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] AC 694, 707; Kuruma v The Queen [1955] AC 197; Reg. v Selvey [1970] AC 304.’

In Kuruma , Lord Goddard CJ at page 239, says:-

‘If, for instance, some admission of some piece of evidence, e.g., a document, had been obtained from a defendant by trick, no doubt the judge might properly rule it out.’

The Federal Court, at page 526, in Goi Ching Ang adverted to Noor Mohamed, Harris, Sang and Kuruma Son of Kainu v Reginam.

The authority by which the court is bound is Goi Ching Ang which after reference and discussion of the various authorities adverted to above, concluded:-

‘Evidence obtained in an oppressive manner by force or against the wishes of an accused person or by trick or by conduct of which the police ought not to take advantage, would operate unfairly against the accused and should in the discretion of the court be rejected for admission.’

[italicized for emphasis]

The learned DPP’s reference to Hanafi bin Mat Hassan v Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 MLJ 134 for the proposition that the court has no discretion to refuse to admit evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained if it is relevant and therefore, the evidence relating to the blood sample taken from the accused was admissible as it was relevant even if it was taken without his consent runs counter to the proposition in Goi Ching Ang.

In any event, it must be observed Goi Ching Ang does not appear to have been cited in Hanafi which is a Court of Appeal decision.

On the evidence adduced  in the TWT, it is clear after Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim had refused to give his blood samples for DNA profiling as requested by the doctors at HKL, which was his right, he was brought back to IPK KL and was there supplied by DSP Yahya with the Good Morning towel, toothbrush and mineral water bottle.

It is apparent, having regard to the sequence of the events, that the DNA extracted from the said items had been brought about by deception/trickery. This is manifested by having regard to the evidence led in general trial that Supt. Jude Periera had directed police personnel guarding the lock-up not to touch the items referred to hereinbefore.

Why was there a need for such directions unless it was a ploy hatched by the police to ensure DNA samples would be extracted from these items despite Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim having earlier exercising his right by refusing to give his blood samples for DNA profiling at the HKL, which was clearly within the knowledge of Supt. Jude Pereira who accompanied Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim to the HKL.

It is very significant to note that Supt. Jude Periera was not called as a witness in rebuttal in relation to the directions he gave to the said police personnel.
The irresistible conclusion is that the police applied unfair methods and unfair means to procure DNA from those items.

With regard to Taufik’s evidence that he was directed by CID chief Dato’ Sri Bakri Zinin to arrest Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim for diverting from IPK KL, it is significant to note this was not the ground given by Taufik for Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s arrest. Taufik testified the grounds of arrest he gave to Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was that he had committed an offence under Section 377B of the Penal Code.

In conclusion, it is not the American authorities which the court should be concerned with but by the decision of the 5-man bench of the Federal Court in Goi Ching Ang.

If I could round up, what is important here is not what the evidence is of the DNA profile which in fact is disputed, the evidence given by Dr. Seah and Aidora and cannot be taken into account for the purpose of coming to a conclusion in a trial within a trial. A trial within a trial is a part from the main trial. What is to be considered is what transpired in the trial within a trial.

I take your Lordship to S.114(g) of the Evidence Act. I refer to it yesterday. Why when witnesses are available, Supt. Jude, DSP Yahya, Dato’ Seri Bakri Zinin and other police personnel who were guarding the lock-up not called as witnesses during rebuttal. These are matters that YA has to take into account when coming to the conclusion as to whether in this case the unfair method and unfair means employed by the police and above all unlawful arrest which in fact preceded the events which led ultimate to the obtaining of the DNA profile from the items which are disputed.

The proper case for YA to rule that the defence has on a balance of probability and that is that case, YA. Test set out by the Privy Council in the case of Yuvaraj that it is reasonable for YA to come to the conclusion that the ground upon which we have [] our submissions ought to be in fact [] by YA.

We pray under those circumstances that the three items to be excluded as evidence in the trial properly. Much obliged.

MY:    May I just have one minute?

YA:    Yes, it should be okay.

MY:    I would like to bring to the court’s attention that R v Payne was decided in 1963 by the Court of Appeal. R v Courts 1962. Meaning 17 or 18 years before R v Sang which is now the leading case or authority with regards to exclusion of evidence. And the decision in R v Payne was criticize by the Court of Appeal in R v Sang at page 420 because the judge said they couldn’t follow what the judges said in R v Payne. It was commented upon by all the judges in the House of Lords in R v Sang in particular Lord Diplock at page 435. That’s all.

KS:    In reply to that, R v Sang does not appeared in the cases cited in Goi Ching Ang but that case appears to have been considered by the 5-man bench in the Federal Court at page 526. R v Sang was cited, Kuruma was cited, and considered by the 5-man bench in the Federal Court. What is important is not what was decided in R vSang. That is an English case.

What is important is what is decided in Goi Ching Ang. In this case Sang was considered and therefore the principle in Goi should prevail. YA is bound by Malaysian law, not by American law and for that matter even by English law.

[]. We would like YA to follow the decision in Goi.

YA:    Stand down for a while.
[10.28 a.m.] Stand down.

[10.35 a.m.]
YA:    This is my ruling in trial within a trial and full ground will be given in due course. I find in this case the DNA samples on toothbrush-ID58A, Good Morning towel-ID59A, and plastic bottle-ID61 were obtained by unfair means against the wishes of the accused. These items and any evidence related to these items especially evidence relating to DNA analysis conducted by SP6 on those items is to be excluded from being part of the notes of evidence.

YA:    Can we proceed with the main trial?

MY:    YA, because I’m not ready with the witnesses, may I ask for tomorrow?

YA:    How many witnesses more you’ve got?

MY:    3 witnesses, JPJ, Ibrahim Yaakob and Dr. Razuin and then the IO.

YA:    We continue tomorrow. They got no witneses. Continue at 9.00 a.m.

KS:     Could we have the trial tomorrow at 8.30 a.m.-1.00 p.m.? I have another trail in the afternoon.

YA:    We start tomorrow at 9.00 a.m. you have to make some arrangements for other cases. This case takes priority.
[10.37 a.m.] Adjourn.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 7 Mac 2011 March 10, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Karpal Singh, Sodomy II.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

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

PP: Semua hadir
PB: KS, SN, Ram Karpal, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy
AI hadir.

[9.06 a.m.]

Hujahan perbicaraan dalam perbicaraan.

MY:    Hari ini ditetapkan untuk hujahan berkaitan dengan trial within a trial. Sebelum rakan saya memulakan hujahan, saya memohon untuk memanggil pegawai penangkap untuk mengemukakan warrant of arrest yang original, YA.

KS:    We object to the application. In fact the prosecution case for the trial within a trial had been closed. Today is the date for submission. We can’t hear it at this stage, in criminal trial; there are certain rules and regulations governed. We have this submission based on the evidence as led in the TWT. It is wrong for the prosecution at this stage produce it to the court. What cannot be done, ought not to be done, YA.

MY:    YA, I do not remember Mr. Karpal or the witness, DSAI challenging the existence of the warrant arrest at highest nature because DSAI said I remember of signing certain evidence but I cannot recall. That is in the light of evidence of Taufek said that the document signed by DSAI and he had made a copy. The only reason why I couldn’t produce it last week was because this warrant of arrest was misplaced. So I asked them to search for it. I didn’t know when they will find it, only this morning I was told they already found it. This morning I made a point to compare this one, with the one that we tender to the court. Only this time, the warrant was in hand written. With regards to this is criminal trial, YA, I remember you in your years of practicing law as DPP and Session Court’s judge and High Court Judge, you have came across cases like Ramli bin Kechik, Pon Nam and sec 425 of Criminal Procedure Court. You would allow this kind of application to arrive at the just decision. We are not [] any surprises, as far as we concerned. I leave it to your Lordship.

KS:    Sec 425 does not apply, in fact it cannot be applied once the case had being closed. [] that is elementary. 2 cases cited YA, I’ve read both of the cases, but that was in relation of recalling of witness in the course of a trial.  Submission had been prepared in the light of evidence given last week and it must remains so, it must not to be otherwise, YA. I pray that the application by my learned friend is dismissed. Let’s get and move on. That’s all.

YA:    In these circumstances, I have to refuse the application by DPP, so we must go on with the submission.

KS:    [read the Submission on Behalf of the Accused (Trial within a Trial)].
It is undisputed that the evidence of the items [the Good Morning towel, toothbrush and the mineral water bottle found in the lock up occupied by DSAI on the night of 16/7/08 at approximately 11.00p.m and after his release at approximately 8.30 a.m on 17.7.08] intended by the prosecution to be admitted as evidence has to be, on a balance of probability, shown by the defence to be sufficient enough for the court to exercise discretion to exclude it. This has been held in PP v Mohd Farid bin Mohd Sukis [2002] 3 MLJ 401 [Tab 1]. In Farid, Augustine Paul J (as he then was) ordered a trial within a trial for that purpose. However, he declined to exercise his discretion to include the Section 27 Evidence Acrt 1950 information in that case after hearing the accused.

In Goi Ching Ang v PP [1999] 1MLJ 507, a 5-man bench of the Federal Court exercised discretion itself to exclude Sec 27 Evidence Act information when the trial judge had not done so when concluding, having regard to the position there, as follows:-

“In short, since the learned trial judge in the instant case under appeal had found that the sec 27 information of the appellant was not voluntary made, it is irrelevant. It was not the appellant’s own statement and was extracted from his contravention of the privileged against self-incrimination and would be unfair to have it admitted against him. The facts and circumstances of the case show that sec 27 information obtained has an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings so that the learned trial judge ought not to have admitted it.

For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the view that the Sec 27 information of the appellant ought to have been excluded from evidence in the discretion of the court which was not exercised by the trial judge.

With the exclusion of the Sec 27 information, we find that there is no or insufficient evidence to justify the conviction of the appellant on the first charge.”

In our case, it is submitted the evidence of the items set out hereinbefore ought to be excluded at the discretion of the court on the following grounds:-
[1]    the arrest of DSAI was in contravention of Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 28A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Court.
[2]    the items referred to hereinbefore were obtained for DNA profiling by improper and unfair means i.e. deception/trickery.

It is submitted the standard of proof on the defence to prove the existence of materials to substantiate the above 2 grounds is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard of proof, than the standard of proof on the defence in the trial within a trial namely, proof on balance of probability.

In PP v Yuvaraj [1968] 1 MLJ 238, the Federal Court held:-
“Where either by statute or by common law, some matter is presumed against an accused person, the burden of rebutting the presumption may be discharged by a defence which is reasonable and probable. Section 3 of the Evidence Ordinance does not affect the quantum of proof”.

The Federal Court in this appeal applied what was said by Azmi CJ in Wong Chooi v PP [1967] 2 MLJ 180 at 181 as follows:-
‘In my view the law is quite clear, that where a burden is placed on an accused person to prove anything, by statute or common law, that burden is only a slight one and that this burden can be discharged by the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution as well as evidence by the defence.

Yuvaraj went on appeal to the Privy Council (Public Prosecutor v Yuvaraj [1969] 2 MLJ 89) which held:-
‘Upon the true construction of the Evidence Ordinance, 1950, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961, there is no relevant difference between the two descriptions of the burden of rebutting the presumption of corruption which are contained in the question if the ‘burden of rebutting this presumption can be said to be discharged by a defence as being reasonable and probable” is understood as meaning “the burden of rebutting such presumption is discharged if the court considers that on the balance of probability the gratification was not paid or given and received corruptly as an inducement or reward as mentioned in section 3 or 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961.’

[1]    Unlawful Arrest

In the TWT, DSAI elected to give evidence under oath.

In a short compass, he testified on 16.7.08 at approximately 9.30 a.m, he accompanied 3 of his lawyers i.e Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, R. Sivarasa and S.N. Nair in his car to the MACC office in Putrajaya for the purpose of having his statement recorded. At that time, he was aware that he had attend at the IPK Kuala Lumpur to give a 112 statement at 2m in relation to a report lodged by Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan. He had been so informed that a prior appointment had been made between Supt. Jude Pereira and S.N Nair on 14.08.2008 for this purpose.

Having regard to his prior appointment, DSAI testified that he informed the MACC officers of this and for that reason, requested that he leave for Kuala Lumpur in the midst of the recording of his statement by the MACC at about 12pm. This was recorded by the MACC. He says he was accompanied by his lawyers in his car on the return journey. Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy was dropped at the Royal Selangor Club in Mont Kiara at approximately 12.30 p.m after which DSAI decided to go to his house in Segambut to perform prayers.

On the way to his house, his car was ambushed by several unmarked vehicles and police cars with around 10-15 UTK commandos clad in balaclavas and armed with machine guns. Nair, who was seated in the front seat beside the driver alighted from the vehicle to find out why they had been waylaid while DSAI remained seated in the back seat. He had wound down the window and heard the conversation between Nair and the police officer who was later identified as Supt. Ahmad Taufik bin Abdullah. Nair demanded to know the grounds for stopping them. Supt. Taufek replied he was merely following orders to arrest DSAI. Nair was not told the ground of arrest. Neither was DSAI told the ground of arrest by Taufik who accompanied him seated at the back of the police car to IPK KL.

Under cross-examination by lead counsel for the prosecution, Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, DSAI denied having any knowledge as to why he was arrested.

With regard to the arrest, Taufik testified that he had informed DSAI the reasons of his arrest, namely that it was under Sec377B of the Penal Code and that the police had obtained the warrant of arrest against him (IDTWT3). Taufik further added that he executed the warrant of arrest at the IPK KL since the warrant was at that time with the Investigating Officer, Supt. Jude Perreira. Taufik added that he showed and read the warrant of arrest to DSAI. Taufik further added that he kept a copy of the warrant with him. It is significant to note that the said warrant was issued by the Magistrate Court, WP KL on 15.7.08 and, as such, the so-called ground of arrest would have been fresh in mind of Taufik at the time DSAI was waylaid on 16.7.08 at approximately 12.30 p.m.

There are 2 versions with regard to whether DSAI was informed of the ground of arrest when he was intercepted on his way home to Segambut by the police. DSAI denies that Nair was informed of the ground of arrest following his having overheard the conversation between Nair and Taufik and neither was he informed of his arrest by Taufik who accompanied him in the back of the police car to the IPK KL.

The law on the subject is clear. Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution in Part II under the heading, ‘Fundamental Liberties’ states:-

‘Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.’

Section 28A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Court under the heading ‘Rights of Person Arrested’ (in force at the time of DSAI’s arrest), states:-
‘A person arrested without a warrant shall be informed as soon as may be of his ground of arrest by the police officer making the arrest.’

It is submitted the evidence of DSAI and Nair should be accepted, namely that no ground of arrest were given by Taufik at the time DSAI was waylaid by the police.
In law, a police officer arresting a person without a warrant both under Article 5(3) and Section 28A(1) is required to furnish the person arrested the grounds of his arrest.

In Nik Adli bin Nik Abdul Azin v Ketua Polis Negara [2001] 4 MLJ 598, it was held:-
‘Notwithstanding that, the liberty of a detainee cannot be taken lightly if the deprivation of personal liberty is not carried out ‘in accordance with law’ (art 5(1) of the Constitution). It is thus trite that as a person shall be informed as soon as may be the grounds of his arrest (followed simultaneously by the right of representation), it must mean that the grounds must have already been in existence when he was arrested. What may be delayed, perhaps due to some extreme exigencies of the moment as stated above, is limited only to the informing. But this remark should not be construed as a carte blanche by the arresting officer to delay in fulfilling his duty, of informing the detainee of the grounds, bearing in mind that an unexplained delay could render the detention order invalid’.

It is submitted, in any event, there is no evidence of any exigency adduced by Taufik to delay informing DSAI of the grounds of arrest at the time when he was stopped by the police or on the way back to the IPK KL. Surely, Taufik would have known the grounds upon which he intended to arrest DSAI before he led the police contingent to waylay him.

A weak attempt is made by Taufik to justify DSAI’s arrest at the IPK KL by the production of IDTWT-3 which, it is submitted, is in any event, inadmissible.

The learned DPP attempted to justify the production of a Photostat copy of the said warrant by relying on section 159 of the Evidence Act to refresh Taufik’s memory. However, the provision of Section 159(3) clearly prohibits this, which states:-
‘Whenever the witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may with the permission of the court, refer to a copy of that document.

Provided that the court is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original.’

Clearly, the so-called Photostat copy of the warrant of arrest is inadmissible.
In Lee Kok Nam v PP [1999] 5 CLJ 283, the court held as follows:-
[1]    A Photostat, being a copy made from the original by a mechanical process within the meaning of sec 63(b) of the Evidence Act 1950 is undoubtedly secondary evidence, and will be available as evidence only under the combined provisions of S 65 and 63(b) of the same act. It will not be available if an explanation is not given as to why the original is not produced. The explanation must of course satisfy one of the conditions of Sec. 65.
[2]    in the instant case, the Photostats (except for P4), without the evidence satisfying any one of the conditions precedent for its admission, were undoubtedly inadmissible evidence.

Lee Kok Nam went on appeal to the Supreme Court which upheld the above propositions by Jeffrey Tan J but set aside his Lordship’s order for a retrial. However, no written judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court.

In our case, the condition precedent to the admissibility of IDTWT-3 has not been fulfilled. On this ground, the application to refresh his memories on the basis of IDTWT-3 ought to have been disallowed by this court. Without this document to refresh memory, Taufik’s evidence in relation to the contents of IDTWT-3 must, of necessity, fall.

On a further ground, IDTWT-3 is inadmissible as it has only been marked by court for identification (ID). As far back as 24.1.77, Abdoolcader J, (as he then was) had occasion in PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris & Ors [1977] 1 MLJ 180 in his regard to hold:-

‘It is necessary to refer to certain exhibits which have been pit in the course of these proceedings for identification but have not in fact have been proved as they should have been and are accordingly not exhibits in the strict sense and cannot therefore form part of the record in this case, namely D41 and D43 which were both put in for identification only and which are the audited accounts and annual report of the Bank for the years 1973-74 and 1972 respectively. As these two exhibits have not been proved and properly admitted as such, they must in the ultimate analysis be discounted and I shall accordingly disregard references to them and also all oral testimony as well adduced thereto.’

Lately, in Nobies Weah Ezike v PP [2010] 1 CLJ 578, the Court of Appeal had occasion to hold at page 586 as follows:-
‘We accept that the learned trial judge fell into error when he took into consideration the guest registration card (ID39), the payment receipt (ID52), the fax message to Thailand (ID51), the customs declaration (ID6E), and the UPS pack (ID6A).’

Further, Taufek had testified that he had returned the original of the warrant of arrest to the IO. However, Jude was not called as a witness in TWT. This non-calling of the witness and the law on the point will be taken up later in this submission.
In the cross-examination of DSAI, the learned DPP put to him that the ground of arrest appeared in the Sec 112 statement recorded by Supt Jude. DSAI’s reply was that the charge appeared in the Sec 112 statement but not the ground of arrest which he repeatedly asked for. Here again, Supt. Jude was not called to rebut these assertions. Then again, the copy of the Sec 223 statement (DTWT-2), as pointed out by DSAI, served on his lawyers, materially differed from the one {DTWT-1) produced by the prosecution.

Clearly, DSAI’s arrest was unlawful, apart from being clearly improper, having regard to the number of the police personnel and vehicles deployed to effect his arrest on his way back home on 16.7.08 to say the least of the armed balaclava-clad police officers. It must be pointed out at this stage, that the prior appointment between Nair and Supt. Jude was at 2 p.m. there was not conceivable reason for DSAI to have been arrested in the unholy haste and high-handed police action at about 12.30 pm while he was on his way back home for prayers. In this regard, it is significant to note that Taufik admitted in examination –in-chief that he received instructions from CID Director, Dato Seri Bakri Zinin, to arrest DSAI who was deviating instead of heading to the IPK KL from Putrajaya. Here again, Dato Seri Bakri Zinin was not called by the prosecution in the TWT to explain why he gave such instructions to Taufik.

Having regard to the evidence given in TWT by DSAI, his arrest, apart from being unlawful and unconstitutional, it was also highly unwarranted, particularly so when this arrest took place on a public highway. The actions of the police were highly insensitive.

[2]     The items obtained for DNA profiling by the police officer were by improper and unfair means i.e. deception/trickery.

DSAI was called to the IPK KL on 16.7.2008 for a s. 112 Criminal Procedure Court statement to be recorded from him. However, despite the recording of the statement being completed at about 5.30 pm and despite various requests by R. Sivarasa, who was called as a witness in the TWT, that DSAI be allowed to go home, he was not allowed to do so. Instead, he was taken to Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) where he was examined by consultant physician, Datuk Dr. Jayainderan Sinnathurai, and consultant surgeon Dr. Ee. Boon Leong. He was requested by these doctors for his blood sample for DNA purpose but he refused on the advice of his lawyers, Sulaiman Abdullah, Nair and Sivarasa, claiming that during the investigations into the first sodomy case on 1998 his blood sample had been stolen from the hospital.

DSAI was not illegally obliged to provide his blood sample for DNA purposes. There is authority for this in Peter James Binstead v Juvencia Autor Partosa [2000] 2 MLJ 569, in which KC Vohrah J (as he then was) held:-

‘There is no general power provided by legislation or through common law for any court in Malaysia to order a person to undergo a test to ascertain paternity. In the case of a DNA test, it is common knowledge that either a blood, tissue or bone specimen will be taken from the person for testing. If a person cannot be subject to hurt within the meaning of Sec 319 of Penal Code against his wall by submitting himself to such testing. Whoever carried out such testing without the person’s consent would violate s 323 of the Penal Code for voluntarily  causing hurt to the person and a court cannot, in the absence of a specific legislative provision, order such person to submit himself to an unlawful act to be committed on his person.’

It is significant to note DSAI was traumatically humiliated during the examination having regard to his evidence as follows:-

‘The doctors asked me to take off my clothes except for my singlet and underwear. They measured my private parts and pubic hair. They also checked my penis and anus. it was degrading.’

Instead of being released after the medical examination, DSAI was brought back to IPK KL and was supplied by DSP Yahya with a Good Morning towel, toothbrush, toothpaste, and a mineral water bottle from which DNA samples for profiling are being sought to be introduced through former Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) chief Amidon Anan. In his evidence, DSAI said that he was placed in the IPK KL lock up from 11.30 p.m, 16.7.08 until 8 a.m the following day before he was released at noon after a further s 112 statement was recorded from him.

It is significant to note when the items were recovered from the lock-up, DSAI was not present. He was the sole occupant of the lock-up overnight. Section 64 of the Criminal Procedure Court states:-

’64.    List of all things seized to be made and signed.
A list of all things seized in the course of a search made under this Chapter and of the places in  which they are respectively found shall be prepared by the officer or other person making the search and signed by him.’

’65.    Occupant to be present at search.
The occupant of the place searched, or some person on his behalf, shall in every instance be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared and signed under this section shall be delivered to that occupant or person at his request.

It is submitted, clearly, the items procured for DNA profiling by the police were obtained by improper and unfair means i.e. deception/trickery.

It is submitted the prosecution’s failure to call IO Supt Jude Pereira, DSP Yahya and CID Chief Dato’ Seri Bakri Zinin in rebuttal to the sworn evidence of DSAI, S.N. Nair, and Sivarasa in the TWT trial is fatal. These personalities played a significant part in the arrest, detention, custody, and procurement of the DNA samples from DSAI. Further, police personnel in charge of the lock-up, whose evidence would have been significant, were also not called to testify in the TWT.

On the authority of Tan Too Kia v PP [1980] 2 MLJ 187 their failure to be called as witnesses in rebuttal leaves the evidence led by the defence in the TWT is unrebutted.

In PP v Tan Kok An [1996] 1 MLJ 89, Abdul Malek J (as he then was) held:-
‘It was not wrong to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution, when being in position to produce better evidence, deliberately abstained from doing so.’


It is submitted the court should be guided by what was held by the 5-man bench of the Federal Court in Goi Ching Ang as follows:-

‘There is a vested discretion in a trial judge to exclude evidence which is prejudicial to an accused even though the said evidence may be technically admissible. evidence obtained in an oppressive manner by force or against the wishes of an accused person or by trick or by conduct of which the police ought not to take advantage, would operate unfairly against the accused and should in the discretion of the court be rejected for admission.’
Under these circumstances, we submit that the exhibits that are sought to be marked as exhibit should be completely disregarded and removed from the court as evidence under the inherent power of the court to disallow such evidence although such evidence can be made technically admissible.

Much obliged.

MY:    Dengan izin, YA. There are 2 issues before the court. The first issue is whether the evidence pertaining from the collection of the exhibits from the lock up cell in IPK KL by DSAI on 16th and 17th of July is unfairly, illegally and improperly obtained. If the judge says yes, then the question is whether it triggers the court to exclude it.

YA, with regards to the first issue, the defence premise their application to exclude on the ground that DSAI was illegally arrested, and therefore the detention was unlawful, and therefore whatever evidence that was obtained consequence to that would be improper and should not be admitted. Now, the question that the court has to address is whether or not the arrest was unlawful.

Before you go to that, perhaps it is good to remind ourselves that this application is made by the defence to exclude evidence. In such application the defence has to prove it basis on the balance of probabilities. The burden is on them to show that there is basis of balance of probability. The case in point is Hanafi bin Mat Hassan [2006] 4MLJ, page 134, tab 12 of 3rd volume, at page 170, para 74:-

‘Be that as it may, the party that is seeking to have evidence excluded in the exercise of the discretion of the court has the onus of showing, on the balance of probabilities, that the discretion should be exercised in its favor. It’s follows that the party seeking the exclusion of the evidence must satisfy the court that the circumstances are such that the court should exercise its discretion in favor of the party making the application. Neither PW43 nor PW47 were cross-examined by the defence to elicit evidence of circumstances that may weigh in favor of the accused in the exercise of the discretion. Indeed learned counsel conceded that no evidence was adduced by the accused on this issue. However, it was contended that the fact that the accused was handcuffed at the time the blood samples were taken the handcuffs were removed. In any event the mere fact of the accused being handcuffed does not on its own disclosed any improper conduct on the part of the police to enable a consideration of the exercise of the discretion in favor of the accused. The objection raised therefore has no merit whatsoever.’

And as far as the evidence with regard to the basis, YA is elementary to look at both evidence adduce during a trial within a trial and the evidence in the substantive trial. This could be found in the case of Farid Mohd Sukis [2002] 3 MLJ, in our bundle volume 1, tab 3. If I may read, page 412, para between D to F:-
‘At the resumed hearing, the parties would generally agreeable to the applicable law. The Australian courts have held that the party seeking to have evidence ruled inadmissible in the exercise of the discretion of the court has the onus of showing, on the balance of probability, that the discretion should be exercised in that way.

The appropriate way of dealing with an application of this nature is by way of a trial within a trial. Street CJ expressed the view that a judge, in considering an application of this nature, ‘…must necessarily act upon such evidence as is placed before him either in the substantive trial or on the voir dire, or both’.

In the course of submission, I will refer to both. What is [] evidence? My learned friend had adverted to it just now, when they laid the ground for exclusion. What is obvious is this. With regards to the warrant of arrest, DSAI did not categorically denied the existence of such warrant of arrest. All he said he remembered being served with certain documents, he remembered signing it, but he couldn’t recall what document is that.

If we remembered in the light of evidence of Supt. Taufek, there was no other document served in IPK to DSAI except the warrant of arrest. In the same time, DSAI did not deny that before the recording of his statement [TWT 1] that he was explained and told about this at page 2, ‘sebelum Dato’ Seri menandatangani borang rakaman percakapan, Dato’ Seri meminta penjelasan mengenai tuduhan dan ianya telah dijelaskan oleh DSP Jude bahawa terdapat satu laporan polis iaitu Travers Rpt 4350/08 oleh seorang lelaki melayu nama Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan dan mendakwa Dato’ Seri telah meliwat beliau pada 26.6.2008 di Unit 1151 Kondominium Desa Damansara Jalan Setiakasih Bukit Damansara Kuala Lumpur’.

This he did not deny. He said yes. This is the request evidence. Now when it come to prosecution, the prosecution said through Supt. Taufek, that DSAI was in fact inform of the ground at the time of the arrest that he was being arrested for a seizable offence, under Sec 377B, and before the recording of the statement, Taufek had served on him, and read it to him which contained the charge and he got DSAI to sign at the back of the warrant, which he subsequently handed to the IO but not before he made a copy of the warrant, which was signed by the accused.

My learned friend with regard to the photocopy of the warrant did object to it. DSAI did not remember, so pursuant to Sec 159 of Evidence Act, I showed him, of course there was an objection. DSAI couldn’t remember, so I wasn’t able to show him the signature appearing on the photocopy.
But what remains is this; Supt Taufek did make a copy. My Lord, I say, this should be made admissible. It shouldn’t be marked as ID, because this is real evidence. Forget about real evidence first, if I may refer to Sec 60 of EA, the best evidence rule, that the evidence must be direct, must be oral by the person who perceived all those whatever he testifying with his senses, and Sec 60(3) says, ‘if oral evidence refers to the existence of any material including a document, the court may if it thinks fit, require the production of that material or the document for inspection’.

Bearing in mind, DSAI was not in the position to deny that there was in existence of such warrant. Now Taufek says there was warrant of arrest, and I make a copy of it. So, this is real evidence. So it corroborates his story that not only about the warrant of arrest, but also he made a copy for it. Because of that the court may require the production of that material thing for inspection, and this is tendered, but if the lordship refuses that the fact still remains that he made a copy of that warrant. This is direct evidence. Therefore, the photocopy of that warrant should be admitted as P3.

It is our submission My Lord that, when the onus is on the defence, and the defence is not being able to support the allegation they made. In fact, the confession by DSAI that he was shown certain documents and signed it neutralizes his assertion than he was never informed of the ground. This confession with regard to this statement where he was informed by Jude, destroy whatever basis that they may have with regards to this application. And the arresting officer’s testimony, were raised on whatever left on that allegation. My Lord at this juncture may I just make a comment on the complaint of DSAI with regard to original statement recorded from him and the one served on him.

DSAI confirmed that P TWT 1 was the statement recorded from him. He took his time, he wanted to be careful, and he said “yes, this is my statement”. Supposing it is different from what served on him, but it is still remain that this is not a fabricated document. This document bears the signature of the recording officer and his signature. What is the different between this statement and his statement?

He said that 1) there are minor differences, that is a bare statement. When a person said that there are minor differences, without even saying about the particulars, I don’t think that the court should give any weight on it, to be fair on the prosecution. If he showed us, so that we can say where the difference is and you can explain your way. But when he chose to say that there are minor differences but I don’t want to say it, and in fact, there is none.
2) That he has no word sulit appearing at the top. This is the official document My Lord.  Meaning, anybody who takes it out unauthorized will be liable to be prosecuted under the OSA. DSAI doesn’t have the word ‘sulit’, because he is entitled to the statement. So what is the difference? He said to the court, that there were in fact 2 sets; the first set, where at the second page, we have this thing recorded singed by DSAI and Jude where said sebelum memulakan rakaman percakapan ke atas DSAI “beliau juga ditanya samaada boleh atau tidak rakaman video dibuat sepanjang rakaman percakapan ini dijalankan”. This, we asked the police to do so that people won’t make any allegation. “Atas nasihat peguam, surprisingly, beliau telah meminta rakaman percakapan beliau dicatat sepenuhnya dan disahkan, manakala rakaman video tidak diperlukan.”  I thought they want to be transparent, and with this video recording they supposedly should be happy with the request. Only these two pages were not supplied to him. What was supplied to him was the actual statement that was recorded. He said that his copy, the first page under the signature of Pegawai Perakam, there is no name. Jude’s name was not there. Well, what I can say is it is also similar with ours. It has no name there.

The name appears only on the first page where this thing about] video recording was stated there, Jude Pereira. But in both documents, DSAI’s signature appears. So we don’t have different documents, but what he had was his statement minus the first two pages. So obviously, whatever he said about the document being different, materially or otherwise is not true.

Now My Lord, I said with the view to the confession by DSAI. That is sufficient to have this application thrown out. Because you can’t possibly raise the standard on the balance of probability when your evidence is so uncertain and he make concession. Now, can we look at the arresting officer’s evidence? Is there anything that he said that is highly improbable and incredible? He was so certain with what he said, ‘I informed, I served, I asked him to sign’. Supt. Taufek is not an interested witness, he is not the IO, neither was he one of the witness in the main trial. The information asked from him by Nair and DSAI is not official secret information. He said he has no reason not to inform on the counsel and DSAI on the ground. And then we have to bear in mind the person who requesting on the information are no lesser mortal. DSAI and his lawyer were not just any ordinary man on the streets. In fact, DSAI said that the officer was polite and nice at that day and treated him with respect. So, YA had them not informed about it, they surely will make noise throughout the end and at the balai. We will hear about it in the newspaper on the next day. But it wasn’t, because it was never happened that way.

So, the law is very clear, when a police witness, not another witness says something that is not highly incredible, not highly improbable, then the court must accept. I mean, that’s the law. If I may refer your Lordship to volume 3 tab 5, PP v Mohamed Ali 1962 MLJ 257:-
‘When a police witness says something that is not inherently improbable his evidence must in the first instance be accepted. If his evidence is contradicted by other evidence or is shaken by cross-examination then it becomes the business of the Magistrate to decide whether or not it should be accepted. In the absence of contradiction, however, and in the absence of any element of inherent probability the evidence of any witness, whether a police witness or not, who gives evidence on affirmation, should normally be accepted.’

So when they talk about contradiction here Yang Arif is not between what he said and what DSAI’s said. Which made his testimony less than credible, but that is not the case because he is the only witness. Then we have the case of PP v Teh Cheng Poh, tab 6 held number 1:-
‘the police officer in charge of the police patrol car (PW2) was not an interested witness but a public officer performing his duties. In the absence of contradiction of anything improbable in his evidence, he should be accepted as a witness of truth and as a reliable witness’.

What I said just now, Taufek’s role is just to perform the warrant of arrest. He has no interest in this case whatsoever. He was merely performing his duty that was tasked to him. At this point of time, this Honourable Court has no reason to believe not to accept him. There’s nothing he said as incredible and highly improbable. ‘

Now, I would also like to refer to few cases involving habeas corpus application. The principle is the same. First case is Re Pe Long, tab 2, volume 3. The application was grounded upon the fact that the accused was not informed on the ground of arrest. What happen was, the police swore that he told him and the court accept, that’s all.

Also in the case of Aminah v Supt of Prison, Pengkalan Chepa, Tab 1, if I may read the fact there:-
‘One Haron was detained under the Restricted Residence Enactment. An application by originating motion was made by his wife for issue if a writ of habeas corpus challenging the detention on the ground that there had been non-compliance with Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution in that the detainee had not been informed “as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest”.

Held number 1:-
‘as in supporting affidavit the applicant had deposed that when she saw the detainee a few hours after his arrest he was fully informed by the police and knew the reasons for his arrest, this satisfied the requirement of Article 5(3) of the constitution which applies to arrest made under any law including Restricted Residence Enactment in this case.’

YA, on the next page, page 20; the second last para from the below:-
‘Coming to the substantive issues of law raised by counsel for the applicant, I shall first consider the contention that there had been non compliance with Article 5(3) of the Constitution in that the detainee had not been informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest.

What was communicated, in the warrant of arrest, is the charge that is being reproduced. At that time, just before recording, again he said something similar to the charge, that he has committed one offence on one Saiful between this time and this time at this particular place. So, all was there. What the court is saying the information was communicated to this person not at the time of the arrest, but a few hours later, in the balai that he was informed about it.

If I may read the next page, the third below:-
As was held in the Indian case of Tarapade v State of West Bengal [1959] SCR 212, the words “as soon as may be” appearing in article 22(1) of the Indiaan Constitution (and article 5(3) of ours) means as nearly as is reasonable in the circumstances of the particular case. The applicant cannot be heard to deny what she had deposed to in her affidavit, and though what A.S.P Gill told the detainee may not be sufficient grounds, what he had been told by some other member of the police force a few hours later would satisfy the requirements of article 5(3).’

And if I may refer to my learned friend’s submission just now, page 7 I believe, of the submission. I mean, starting from page 6 in Nik Adli bin Nik Abdul Aziz, somewhere in the middle there.
‘It is thus trite that as a person shall be informed as soon as may be the grounds of his arrest (followed simultaneously by the right of representation), it must mean that the grounds must have already been in existence when he was arrested. What may be delayed, perhaps due to some extreme exigencies of the moment as stated above, is limited only to the informing.

So we are saying now there were no delays, he was informed at the time of the arrest. But in case what was communicated to him was insufficient then 1 hour later, not 3 hours, upon reaching IPK, he was informed again this time having the warrant of arrest read to him which its contain the charge and then DSP Jude telling him again. So DSAI is complaining, I’ve been asking for the report. A report is not a ground. Under Article 53 what was important is the ground on where it was communicated.

So My Lord, it would appear then the prosecution has shown to this honorable court that everything had been complied with. He was arrested, he was informed on the ground of the arrest, and subsequently he was detained. Now, the question is whether at that particular time, there was in existence ground to arrest him. In other word, whether there was reasonable suspicion to arrest him.

We have to look at both evidences in the trial within a trial. On 28 June, a report was lodged by Saiful with regard to the offence. His medical examination also done, around the same time of 29th, his statement is being recorded. On 5th July, Jude and Fauziah viewed the CCTV in trace of certain people, it was in evidence. After that, chemist report of Dr. Seah was received. Normally, after a police report for an offence of this nature had been lodged, DSAI would be in the lock up, because that is not the reasonable believe or reasonable suspicion. But here, we have the medical examination, the statement, the report, the chemist report, the CCTV and the medical report.

Now, it was in evidence that Nair that they did recognize 111 CPC notice requiring DSAI to be present.  But what he said is just the communication. Be that as it may, has the police at that point of time have the ground of reasonable suspicion to arrest DSAI, he had. On the 15th of July, warrant of arrest was applied and issued against DSAI with regards to this offence. So, there was no malafide YA. DSAI was not arrested [] whatever Dato Bakri may have instructed. What we have is that there was a possibility that he was not [] because through counsels, they said they are not going to recognized [] for whatever reason. Warrant of arrest executed that day was not an afterthought.

Now, the question is, in fact my learned friend asked, whether there are one or 2 arrest. Taufek said that there was only one arrest. He knew that there is warrant of arrest, but he only given when he took DSAI to IPK. He was told that if DSAI did not go directly to Putrajaya.  Jude had applied and had applied the warrant of arrest at 15th July, the moment he knew that DSAI was in IPK, he had the warrant executed. He had every reason under the law to [] which the Supt Taufek did. YA, I have only 2 copies. Most of the cases will be referring to, it involved Encik Karpal.

This is the case of Ooi Ah Pua, Federal     Court’s decision, whether or not the applicant should be released because he was denied the right to counsel of which his application was rejected. But I would invite you to page 201 of this report para within G to I, left hand column [read].
Using this, I would say this. There was the allegation of sodomy, a seizable offence. And there was reasonable suspicion on the part of the police. And Supt Taufek not only has the power to arrest him without warrant, he was also under duty to do so. I also add, Jude Pereirra also under duty to do so. Where is the unlawfulness of the arrest?

Now, whether or not the detention is lawful, YA at the exercise of investigation power under the Criminal Procedure Court, the police can recover statement, recover exhibits and all that, and for that purpose, they could detain. Whether a witness assure their presence or otherwise, it doesn’t retract the fact that the police had the power to detain, at least for 24 hours before further detention authorized by the magistrate. This was what the police did. Anwar was detained, but not before his statement was recorded. Then he was taken to hospital for medical examination so that the police can have some specimens for the purpose of investigation which he refused. After that, he was brought back to the police station, IPK, and there was way pass 11. Lawyers had argued do not record statement after 11, in the lock up rules. And further statement was taken between 8.45 to 9 something, and this further statement recorded substantially as proceeded by DSAI [] the visit to the hospital.

Now, my learned friend talks about degrading treatment. Medical examination whatever you call it, degrading or what, is not something that apply to DSAI for this purpose. It is not as if they have employed different method of procedure when it comes to DSAI. The hospital authority does not discriminate. The hospital authority is not part of the prosecution or investigation team. They are natural and impartial. So, for DSAI examination, they are doing it because the investigation authority needs that. It is not as if DSAI treated differently. Otherwise every person; those ladies who went to the medical check up, when they were expecting, they were subject to all kind of examination,  and everybody start to scream it is degrading, but this is the reality of the situation. Certain thing has to be done that way. It is not at the instance, it is not the prosecution told the doctor on this is how you do it. This is number 1.

Number 2: it is not as if those exhibit that police recovered, is recovered as the result of degrading examination. Nothing is given by the medical examination. So this is irrelevant for my learned friend to bring up before this court.

Now, it is our submission and stand then, 1) the applicant had failed to prove anything on the balance to prove that the arrest is illegal. The prosecution evidence was to confirm that there was nothing there, that the evidence was legal. If your Lordship is with me, this is the end of this application, you Lordship then your Lordship will allow us, as a matter of admissibility, called Aidora and Amidon to tender the respective exhibits. But if in the event if your Lordship is not with me, then we go to the law on exclusion of evidence.

Now, the other day and today, again I am reminding myself, this court and my learned friend, retraction of the evidence in this trial is governed by Evidence Act. The most relevant section is sec 5, sec 136. Of course my learned friend will not be happy I read sec 136, but I have to read it. It merely says this, the court will only admit evidence if it is relevant. So the test of admissibility is the test of relevancy. Now, we go to the common law, the case of Kuruma v The Queen, decision from Privy Council from Jamaica can be found in our first volume, tab 5. In the Kuruma, it was held that the test of admissibility is relevancy. After that, we have R v Sang. My Lord may I seek a short adjournment because suddenly the thing (T-Pad) hang. Less than 10 minutes, probably.
YA:    Ok, kita mula balik 10. 45
[10.27]:     Stand down

[10.27 a.m.] Stand down.

[10.50 a.m.]
MY:     Before I continue with my submission there is something that I have omitted. My learned friend’s submission talks about the absence of S.64 i.e. the search list when the exhibits were collected from the lock up. The fact that those exhibits was collected from the lock up cell where Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was detained was never disputed. It was not challenged. The bottle, the towel, the toothbrush was never disputed.

And it is my submission that S.64 talks about premise occupied, not a place where you were detained. An occupier is a person, if I’m not mistaken when I read “Word or Phrases: Judicially Defined”, it’s a book by MLJ is a person you said when you knock the door who said “Come in”. Or under other laws, the person take care of the management of the place. Obviously DSAI doesn’t fit into that.

But whatever it is, the case of San Soo Ha deals with the absence of the list. If I can straight away go to page 4 of the report, 1st para, starting from the word “the most that can be said about the failure to comply with the provision relating to search list is that it may cast doubt upon the bona fide of the parties conducting the search and accordingly afford ground for scrutiny. But if after close scrutiny the court arrived at the conclusion that [] articles were recovered from the possession of the accused person, it is obviously no defence to say that the evidence was obtained in an irregular manner. There is nothing in law which made such evidence inadmissible”. An evidence of recovery. Here the evidence on recovery was never disputed therefore the submission by my learned friend actually holds no [].

My lord, I stopped at Kuruma v The Queen. It is an African case, Privy Council decision which held that the test of admissibility is relevancy. The court held that if the evidence is admissible, the court is not concerned with how it was obtained. In that particular case, ammunition was found on the person searched by police personnel below the authorized rank, below the rank of Assistant Inspector so it makes the whole search illegal. In refusing to exclude the evidence and confirmed by the Supreme Council this is what the court says, once admissible, the court is not concerned on how it was obtained.

Now we go to the celebrated case of Regina v Sang [1980] AC 402, the House of Lords decision. Here is the case of agent provocateur. In this case, the House of Lords held,

“that a judge in a criminal trial always had discretion to refuse to admit evidence if, in his opinion, its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value or when the admissibility of evidence was obtained unfairly from the accused.”

And it says,

“save with regard to admissions and confessions and generally with regard to evidence obtained from the accused after commission of the offence, the judge had no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means.”

This is an important case that all the cases in the Commonwealth will follow and apply. May I take your Lordship to certain dicta of the judges in R v Sang.

First, it says the court has discretion to exclude if though admissible, the prejudicial effect outweigh its probative value. May I invite your Lordship to dicta by Lord Diplock at page 433 of the report, between para D&E,

“I turn now to the wider question that has been certified”

What is the question certified? The question certified could be found at page 431,

“Does a trial judge have a discretion to refuse to allow evidence-being evidence other than evidence of admission-to be given in any circumstances in which such evidence is relevant and of more than minimal probative value”.

That is the question. Can you still, other than confession, other than admission where the evidence is relevant but has more than minimal probative value? I continue reading page 433,

“It does not purport to be concerned with self incriminatory admissions made by the accused himself after commission of the crime though in dealing with the question I will find it necessary to say something about these. What the question is concerned with is the discretion of the trial judge to exclude all other kinds of evidence that are of more than minimal probative value.

Recognition that there may be circumstances in which in a jury trial the judge has a discretion to prevent particular kinds of evidence that is admissible from being adduced before the jury, has grown up piecemeal.”

It goes on until the next reference was made to Lord Hodson in R v Selvey [1970] AC 304,

“A case in which this House accepted that in such cases the trial judge had a discretion to prevent such cross-examination, notwithstanding that it was strictly admissible under the statute, if he was of opinion that its prejudicial effect upon the jury was likely to outweigh its probative value.”

Then it talks about the discretion to exclude similar facts evidence. Again, they are talking about the probable effect of the case. At paragraph C at page 434 the judge said,

“So I would hold that there has now developed a general rule of practice whereby in a trial by jury the judge has a discretion to exclude evidence which, though technically admissible, would probably have a prejudicial influenced on the minds of the jury, which would be out of proportion to its true evidential value.”

And then at page 435,

“In no other case to which your Lordships’ attention has been drawn has either the Court of Criminal Appeal or the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal upon the ground that either magistrates in summary proceedings or the judge in a trial upon indictment ought to have exercised a discretion to exclude admissible evidence upon the ground that it had been obtained unfairly or by trickery or in some other way that is morally reprehensible; though they cover a wide gamut of apparent improprieties from illegal searches.”

Then we have at page 436,

“That statement was not, in my view, ever intended to acknowledge the existence of any wider discretion than to exclude (1) admissible evidence which would probably have a prejudicial influence upon the minds of the jury that would be out of proportion to its true evidential value; and (2) evidence tantamount to a self-incriminatory admission which was obtained from the defendant, after the offence had been committed”.

It is something like blood specimens and all that, my Lord.

Lord Viscount Dilhorne at page 441 has got to say with regard to the discretion,
“In Kuruma v. The Queen [1955] AC 197 evidence was not held to be inadmissible because it was illegally obtained.  evidence so obtained must surely be regarded as unfairly obtained. Evidence may be obtained unfairly though not illegally but it is not the manner in which it has been obtained but its use at the trial if accompanied by prejudicial effects outweighing its probative value and so rendering the trial unfair to the accused which will justify the exercise of judicial discretion to exclude it.”

We have Lord Salmon at page 444 paragraph H to page 445 paragraph C, Lord Fraser at page 449 paragraph E-F, and Lord Scarman at page 453 paragraph C and at page 452.

If I may read Lord Scarman at page 452 paragrah D,

“In my judgment, certain broad conclusions emerge from a study of the case law. They are:
(1)    that there is one general discretion, not several specific or limited discretions;
(2)    that the discretion now extends further than was contemplated by Lord Halsbury and Lord Moulton in Chrities’s case, or even by Lord Simon in Harris v Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] AC 694: it is now the law that “a judge has a discretion to exclude legally admissible evidence if justice so requires” (Lord Reid in Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] AC 1001, 1024);
(3)    that the formula of prejudicial effect outweighing probative value, which has been developed in the “similar fact” cases, is not a complete statement of the range or the principle of the discretion;
(4)    that the discretion is, however, limited to what my noble and learned friend, Viscount Dilhorne, calls the “unfair use” of evidence at trial: it does not confer any judicial power of veto upon the right of the prosecution to prosecute or to present in support of the prosecution’s case admissible evidence, however obtained.

These broad conclusions leave unresolved the critical question as to the limits of the discretion and the principle upon which it is founded. It may be, as Lord MacDermott C.J. said in Reg. v Murphy [1965] N.I 138,149, that unfairness, which will be found to be its modern justification, cannot be closely defined. One must, however, emerge from the last refuge of legal thought-that each case depends on its facts-and attempt some analysis of principle.”

At page 453 paragraph C,

“Notwithstanding its development case by case, I have no doubt that the discretion is now a general one in the sense that it is to be exercised whenever a judge considers it necessary in order to ensure the accused a fair trial. Reg. v. Selvey [1970] AC can be seen to be of critical importance. Viscount Dilhorne, though he was directing his attention to the specific situation in that case (cross-examination of situations, e.g. Rex v. Christie [1914] AC 545, Noor Mohamed v. The King [1949] AC 182, Harris v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] AC 694 and Kuruma v. The Queen [1955] AC 197, and concluded by saying, at pp. 341-342:
“It [i.e. its exercise] must depend on the circuses to which your mstances of each case and the overriding duty of the judge to ensure that a trial is fair” (my emphasis).” ”

At page 435, Lord Diplock has said this,

“Nevertheless it has been recognized that there is an unbroken series of dicta in judgments of appellate courts to the effect that there is a judicial discretion to exclude admissible evidence which has been “obtained” unfairly or by trickery or oppressively, although except in Reg. v Payne [1963] 1 WLR 637, there never has been a case in which those courts have come across conduct so unfair, so tricky or so oppressive as to justify them in holding that the discretion ought to have been exercised in favour of exclusion.”

So what they are saying is that up to 1980 complaints of evidence being obtained through trickery, unfair means and oppressive have been raised but except for Reg. v. Payne, all the courts deem it’s fit not to exclude because they found them not to be so unfair, so trickery or so oppressive to justify the exclusion.

In R v Sang, the court says that they are more concerned with how the evidence obtained by those means, whether illegal or legal is being used. This can be found in the judgment of Lord Diplock at page 436 paragraph F-H.

“I think, make it clear that the function of the judge at a criminal trial as respects the admission of evidence is to ensure that the accused has a fair trial according to law. It is not part of a judge’s function to exercise disciplinary powers over the police or prosecution as respects the way in which evidence to be used at the trial is obtained by them. If it was obtained illegally there will be a remedy in civil law; if it is obtained legally but in breach of the rules of conduct for the police, this is a matter for the appropriate disciplinary authority to deal with. What the judge at the trial is concerned with is not how the evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution has been obtained, but with how it is used by the prosecution at the trial.

Lord Viscount Dilhorne said the same thing at page 439 paragraph E-F, page 441 paragraph F-G, and page 445, para G. Court in R v Sang also says, to exclude evidence just because they were obtained by those means improperly and no more is wrong.

If I may now refer to page 441, the judgment of Viscout Dilhornne at paragraph C-E,
“In Jeffery v. Black [1978] QB 490 Lord Widgery C.J. expressed the same view, saying that it was open to justices to apply their discretion and to decline to allow evidence to be given if it has been obtained by police officers by trickery, oppressive conduct, unfairly or as a result of behavior which was morally reprehensible.  With great respect I do not think that these observations were correct. I have not been able to find any authority for the general principle enunciated by Lord Parker or for those statements by him or by Lord Widgery. If there is any authority for it, it conflicts with Lord Goddard’s statement in Kuruma v The Queen [1955] AC 197 that the court is not concerned how evidence is obtained. If obtained in one of the ways referred to, its credibility may be impaired. That will be a matter for the jury to consider. It cannot be said that in addition to the probative value of evidence so obtained, it has a prejudicial effect such as to render the trial unfair to the accused if it is admitted.”

The House of Lords in R v Sang says you cannot exclude just because it was improperly obtained. The application of this discretion only confined to evidence exclusively from the accused.

Lord Scarman at page 456 paragraph F,
“The question remains whether evidence obtained from an accused by deception, or a trick, may be excluded at the discretion of the trial judge. Lord Goddard C.J. thought it could be : Kuruma v The Queen [1955] AC 197,204, Lord Parker C.J. and Lord Widgery C.J. thought so too: see Callis v. Gunn [1964] 1 Q.B. 495,502 and Jeffery v Black [1978] Q.B. 490. The dicta of three successive Lord Chief Justices are not to be lightly rejected. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this appeal, to express a  conclusion upon them. But, always provided that these dicta are treated as relating exclusively to the obtaining of evidence from the accused.”

Be it confession, be it admission or any specimens, blood, body fluid or hair samples but confined to the accused. Lord Fraser said the same thing, it refers to admission and confession and all other evidence obtained from the accused himself or from his premises. This could be found at page 449  paragraph E-F and page 450 paragraph A. Lord Diplock says the same thing at page 436 paragraph A-B, it refers to admission, confession and anything from the accused. Then of course they talked about whatever it is, even if it is legally admissible if it would lead to an unfair trial then the court could reject it.

What is a fair trial? If I may refer to Lord Diplock’s dicta at page 436 paragraph H,
“A fair trial according to law involves, in the case of a trial upon indictment, that it should take place before a judge and a jury: that the case against the accused should be proved to the satisfaction of the jury beyond all reasonable doubt upon evidence that is admissible in law; and as a corollary to this, that there should be excluded from the jury information about the accused which is likely to have an influence on their minds prejudicial to the accused which is out of proportion to the true probative value of admissible evidence conveying that information. If these conditions are fulfilled and the jury receive correct instructions from the judge as to the law applicable to the case, the requirement that the accused should have a fair trial according to law is, in my view, satisfied; for the fairness of a trial according to law is not all one-sided; it requires that those who are undoubtedly guilty should be convicted as well as that those about whose guilt there is any reasonable doubt should be acquitted. However much the judge may dislike the way in which a particular piece of evidence was obtained before proceedings were commenced, if it is admissible evidence probative of the accused’s guilt it is no part of his judicial function to exclude it for this reason. If your Lordship so hold you will be reverting to the law as it was laid down by Lord Moulton in Rex v. Christie [1914] AC 545, Lord du Parcq in Noor Mohamed v. The King [1949] AC 182 and Viscount Simon in Harris v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1952] AC 694 before the growth of what I believe to have been a misunderstanding of Lord Goddard’s dictum in Kuruma v. The Queen [1955] AC 197.”

Between paragraph D-E, this is what he said,

“I would accordingly answer the question certified in terms which have been suggested by my noble and learned friend, Viscount Dilhorne, in the course of our deliberations on this case. (1) A trial judge in a criminal trial has always a discretion to refuse to admit evidence if in his opinion its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. (2) Save with regard to admissions and confessions and generally with regard to evidence obtained from the accused after commission of the offence, he has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. The court is not concerned with how it was obtained.”

This discretion only confined to this two kind of evidence, admission, confession and anything that has the effect of confession. Lord Scarman at page 452 paragraph C, page 453 and page 455 paragraph B said the same thing.

From the judgment by the House of Lords what we can conclude is that (1) the judge has a discretion to exclude evidence whether legally or illegally obtained if justices so requires in order to have a fair trial which means the evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, then it should be excluded though strictly admissible; (2) that this discretion is confined to evidence obtained conclusively from the accused either oral evidence or any other evidence or from his house, premises occupied by him and the ct should not exclude evidence  just because it was obtained improperly either by trick or by any illegal means unless it is so trickery, it is so oppressive and it is so unfair. And up to 1980 when the judgment was written there is only one case despite all complaints by the accused person, R v Payne where discretion was in fact exercised.

My lord, the principle in Kuruma v The Queen and R v Sang has been applied throughout the Commonwealth including the Malaysia court and Singapore. If I may invite your Lordship to the case of Hanafi b. Mat Hassan v PP [2006] 4 MLJ 134. If I may read, in Hanafi blood samples was taken from the accused while he was handcuffed without his consent therefore it was supposedly to have been involuntarily given. Court of Appeal held that this evidence is admissible. If I may refer to page 136, holding no.6,

“The court has no discretion to refuse to admit evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained if it is relevant. Therefore the evidence relating to the blood sample taken from the accused was admissible as it was relevant even if it was taken without his consent.”

If I may invite your Lordship to the actual judgment at page 168, paragraph 64,

“It was the stand of the defence that the blood samples taken from the accused for the purpose of conducting the DNA tests were not taken voluntarily. It was argued that eventhough no evidence was adduced by the accused on this issue the evidence relating to the blood sample must be excluded in the exercise of the discretion of the court as the available evidence shows that he was handcuffed at the time thereby rendering the taking of the blod sample involuntarily.”

And next page at paragraph 68 this is what the judge said,
“It is therefore clear that the court has no discretion to refuse to admit evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained if it is relevant. This rule applies, inter alia, to cases involving illegal searches, evidence obtained by secret listening devices or by undercover police operations. It also applies to evidence obtained by unfair procedures. Thus in R v Apicella (1968) 82 Cr App R 295, the English Court of Appeal upheld a rape conviction based upon the results of tests carried out on a specimen of body fluid obtained from the accused for medical reasons whilst he was on remand. In AG for Quebeck v Begin (1955) SCR 593, it was held that even if a blood sample was obtained from the accused without his consent it is admissible to prove intoxication. It follows that the evidence relating to the blood sample taken from the accused is admissible as it is relevant ebven if it was taken without his consent.”

Then it goes to deal with Kuruma v The Queen and  R v Sang at patra 70 quoting R v Sang,
“That is why there is no discretion to exclude evidence discovered as the result of an illegal search, but there is a discretion to exclude evidence which the accused has been induced to produce voluntarily if the method of inducement was unfair.”

Hanafi applied R v Sang and Kuruma and says “Look, we admit first”.

Then we have the case of Ajmir Singh (1987) 2 MLJ 141 which I undertake to supply to the court. It is a Singapore case where the accused was charged with riding a scooter under the influence of alcohol. Blood sample was taken from him without his consent. After referring to R v Sang at page 144 of the report, paragraph F-J,

“Accordingly I do not find it is necessary to consider whether or not the appellant gives his consent and in that connection whether consent in S.70(3) means consent given expressly as distinguished from consent given impliedly i.e. without compulsion by a failure to object to blood being taken. But even assuming that no consent had been given, the appellant will still have to overcome the hurdle as to whether the evidence amounted to an involuntary confession or admission of a nature that renders the evidence inadmissible. In [] Lord Atkins said that a confession must either admit the terms of the offence or at any rate substantially or the [] which substantively commit the offence. Here had there be any confession or admission it was merely to the fact that the appellant had excessive amount of alcohol in his blood and not to the fact that he was unable to control his scooter was under the influenced of the drink.”

Therefore it is not confession and thus admissible. The same thing with our case. To prove the case we have to have the oral evidence with regard to the act. The DNA that was found on the bottle didn’t do anything, did not amount to confession to be excluded to have the discretion envisaged by R v Sang to be applied. So we []. The prosecution need to show the connection between the DNA from the bottle to the DNA in the sperm cell in the body of Saiful and the oral evidence of Saiful himself. So, it is not a direct confession. It is not something that you can equate it with a confession where by the DNA result obtained from the bottle that directly prove the case. We are saying our case is something like this. It does not fall within the exception envisaged by R v Sang, admission, confession or anything that is obtained from him which amounts to confession.

After the Singapore case and Malaysia case I would invite your Lordship to a few cases which the prosecution thinks very relevant for our purpose.

The first case is Herman King v The Queen [1969] 1 AC 197 . In this case drugs was found on the accused person as a result of illegal search in the sense that the search was not justified by a warrant or is not justified by law. The court held that the evidence is admissible.

If I may refer to what the court says at page 314 paragraph C,

“Although the search was not authorized by the Dangerous Drugs Law or the Constabulary Force Law there was no evidence that the appellant was willfully misled by the police officers or any of them into thinking that there was such authorization.”

So here it said he was not tricked neither he was misled. At page 315 paragraph C-G, [read].

Next, on page 316 paragraph A-B[read].

I now invite your Lordship to page 318 paragraph D-E,
“The appellant relied in his argument on the use of the word “trick” which appears in Kruma v The Queen and Callis v. Gunn and in other cases as well. The court reviewed this and other authorities and commenting on the passage in Lord Parker C.J.’s judgment to which their Lordships have already referred, use this language:
“We do not read this passage as doing more than this thing a variety of classes of oppressive conduct which would justify exclusion. It certainly gives no ground for saying that any evidence obtained by any false representation or trick is to be regarded as oppressive and left out consideration.””

It says it doesn’t. It is not a ground to exclude it if obtained by false misrepresentation.

Then at page 319 paragraph B it said,
“Their Lordships agree with the judgment of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court in holding that unfairness to the accused is not susceptible of close definition:
“It must be judged of in the light of all the material facts and findings and all the surrounding circumstances. The position of the accused, the nature of the investigation, and the gravity or otherwise of the suspected offence, may all be relevant. That is not to say that the standard of fairness must bear some sort of inverse proportion to the extent to which the public interest may be involved, but difference offences may post different problems for the police and justify different methods.””

That is as far as illegal search is concerned. In our case we are not saying there is anything illegal. The arrest and detention subsequently was lawful. So in obtaining the exhibit there was no trick employed. Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was not tricked to use the toothbrush, or the towel. He was not tricked to drink the water from the mineral bottle and then he brought it into the cell neither was he induced to do all that nor was he threaten to do it. There is no oppression.

Going by this case my Lord, it appear that even if it is illegal, the court still held that evidence from the illegal search was still admissible.

I next proceed to the next case in my list my Lord, the case of Jeffrey v Black [1978] 1QB 490, this is two cases before R v Sang. In this case drugs, cannabis was found in the accused’s premises where there was no search warrant is showed and neither the accused was presented to the search. It was held by the court that though the search was unlawful and evidence illegally obtained it is still admissible because it is relevant.

I’m coming to the case after R v Sang which is Trump [1980] 70 Cr App R 300. In this particular case, the accused was charged for drunk driving. Specimens were given after a trap of prosecution, he did not consent to the giving of breath specimens. And it was held the evidence with regard to the specimens was admissible.

If I may invite your Lordship  to page 302, 4th paragraph, I skipped that because it repeat R v Sang. Next, I refer to page 303 last paragraph,
“There are two particular aspects of the problem before the court. One is whether the court should attempt to discipline the police by ensuring that irregular behavior will, so far as the court can achieve it, be fruitless. This may also be regarded as a means of seeing  that an accused is fairly treated. The other aspect is to ensure that the trial itself is fair. It is possible to regard a trial as being a fair trial itself even though the evidence used at the trials was unfairly or improperly obtained. A trial is not a game. Lord Scarman said, at p.304 and p.286 respectively: “…the discretion is, however, limited to what my noble and learned friend, Viscount Dilhorne, calls the ‘unfair use’ of evidence at trial: it does not confer any judicial power or veto upon the right of the prosecution to prosecute or present in support of the prosecution’s case admissible evidence, however obtained.””

At page 305,
“In the present case, however, it would seem that the accused gave his consent as a result of the warning that he might be prosecuted for failure to provide the specimen. In giving this warning the officer was following the procedure applicable to obtaining a specimen under Section 9, not under Section 7. This court does not think that the specimen does obtained is a specimen obtained with the accused’s consent, within the meaning of Section 7. There was therefore no obligation to admit the evidence by virtue of Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. Consequently, while considerations of the policy disclosed in the Road Traffic Act 1972 may provide some assistance in determining the question before this Court, there is nothing mandatory in the act one way or the other.

This Court thinks that it is consistent with all the speeches in SANG (supra) to hold that evidence provided by the accused himself in the circumstances of the present case should be treated as being subject as to its admissibility to discretion of the judge. It was provided by the accused. It was given as a result of a threat. The police officer was responsible for that, although he was acting in good faith. Given the blood was very close to making an admission that the accused had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. We think it is a matter for the judge’s discretion rather than of compulsory exclusion, because evidence analogous to admissions is so treated in the speeches in the House of Lords, and in the passages quoted from the speech of Lord Diplock there are specific references to the exercise of judicial discretion.

In the judgment of this Court the judge would have exercised his discretion improperly if he had excluded the evidence.”

So, despite there being a threat of the prosecution in obtaining the specimens still this case my Lord the court held it would be improper to exclude the evidence.

Now, I come to the case of Regina v Fox [1986] 1 AC 281. In this case the accused was charged for driving with excess alcohol in his breath. Breath specimens was obtained after an unlawful arrest. It was held by the House of Lords that the evidence is relevant to prove guilt therefore admissible. The fact that he was unlawfully arrested was irrelevant.

If I may invite your Lordship to page 290 of the report at paragraph E,
“In your Lordships’ House a frontal attack was mounted on the admissibility of the specimens as evidence, on the ground that it had been obtained by means which were not authorized by the act and which were illegal, that it was, therefore, tainted by illegality.”

At page 291 in the last paragraph, this is what the judge had to say,
“In the present case, on the other hand, the offence of which the accused now stands convicted is not the offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath. It is the offence of driving with excess alcohol in his breath, and the specimen was only evidence, important but not in itself conclusive, tending to show that he had committed the offence. Moreover, it was “evidence subsequently obtained from the accused himself relating to an offence that [had] already been committed by him,” and as such it would be capable of falling with the judge’s exclusionary jurisdiction.”

Then it refered to R v Sang between paragraph D-E,
“The Crown Court held, following the Kuruma line of authorities, that the evidence was admissible although it exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence on other grounds which are not here material. Having had the privilege of reading in advance the speech of my noble and learned friend in the instance appeal, I can now express the confident opinion that the holding of the court in Smith’s case was correct and that in that case, as in this the fact that the evidence had been obtained illegally did not make it inadmissible. Accordingly the Divisional Court in the present case was in my view right in treating the fact that the appellant was in the police station because he had been unlawfully arrested merely as a historical fact, with which the court was not concerned.”

In fact I think it was stated there in the holding that the fact that he was illegally arrested is not relevant. At page 294 it sets out the fact of the case, my Lord. So, what is clear from this case is that there was unlawful arrest and unlawful obtaining of the evidence and the court still says no. It admissible after refereeing to Kuruma and R v Sang.

Next is the case of Apicella [1986] 82 Cr App R 295. Here the case is of rape and attempted buggery. After he was charged and imprisoned, sample of body fluid was taken without consent because he thought being in prison he had to give it and had no choice.  The DNA evidence obtained from the samples were used against him. What happened was this, my Lord. There are 3 ladies who were raped and they were attempted buggery. All three of them suffered from gonorrhea. While this person is imprisoned the prison doctors suspected that he was also suffering from gonorrhea. So body fluid was taken, sent for analysis and they found that the strain of this gonorrhea was similar to that and based on that he was charged.

If I may invite your Lordship to page 296, holding no.1 and 2,

“(1) there was no rule of law which said that evidence of anything taken from a suspect, be it body fluid, a hair or an article hidden in an orifice of the body, could not be admitted unless the suspect consented to the taking.
(2) in the present case as the appellant was not tricked into submitting to the examination by the consultant, the prosecution’s use of the evidence derived from the appellant’s body fluid, taken in the circumstances it was, was not unfair and the trial judge was right in his discretion not to exclude it.”

At page 298, 2nd last paragraph and last paragraph, [read].

Then the 5th paragraph [read].

Next paragraph, my Lord,

“The pertinent question in this case is whether the intended use of that evidence was likely to make the trial unfair. The appellant was not tricked into submitting to the examination in the way which led to this Court’s predecessor in PAYNE (1963) 47 CR.App.R. 122; [1963] 1 WLR 637 to exclude evidence. In our judgment the prosecution’s use of the evidence derived from the appellant’s body fluid, taken in the circumstances it was, was not unfair.”

Again, looking at the factual material of this case and looking at our case, our case is grounded on more, stronger putting. There was no illegality, no impropriety, nothing. The exhibit from which DNA profile was obtained was not even in the possession of the accused. So that to equate it to be physical confession, nothing of that sort: no trick, no inducement.

There is another case which is R v Christou which I will not read.

I come to the case of Stephen Cooke [1995] 1 Cr App R 318 as far as the English Court is concerned. In this case the accused was convicted for rape and kidnapping. Identification of the accused depended on DNA evidence obtained from hair sample taken from the accused, from DNA profile taken from the semen in the victim’s vagina and camisole.  It is almost like our case, the DNA obtained from the towel, toothbrush and mineral water bottle matches with the DNA that was found in the sperm cells found in Saiful’s anus.

The complaint by the accused there is that there was no consent for the hair to be taken or the hair where the DNA traces were to be found. It was held that the evidence is admissible even if it is extracted without consent.  In Stephen v Cooke, this objection was taken under S. 78 of the Criminal Evidence Act.

If I may read page 328, paragraph B-G, page 329 para A.[read].

So, the evidence that was obtained and subsequently adduced to support the charge somehow similar to our case. The only difference is that there the court is prepared to [] even if it is unauthorized and impropriety, it is still admissible. Here, we are saying that there is nothing improper, nothing illegal and it must be admitted.

My lord, I’m coming to the last four cases. The last four cases is an American case which involved the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution, the expectancy to the privacy of the property.

The first case on the list is Commonwealth v Jeffery Byl (2007) SC. In this particular case, defendant was convicted for murder of a prosecutor assigned to prosecute him. The trial was supposed to begin the next day and today he murdered the prosecutor.  Among the evidence used was the DNA test result from water bottle that he left behind after an interview with the police.

He was called for interview and they supplied him with water bottle and they give him cigarette. He left them behind and he claimed now that he deceived to come to the interview in order for the police to obtain sample. He would not have consented to give any sample. The court held that it is admissible because he had abandon his rights over those article and there was no expectation of privacy when he left them behind.

The report is not paginated. If I may refer your Lordship to page 7 under the paragraph “Suppression issues” under subparagraph “physical evidence”,
“Bly argues that the method used by the Commonwealth in obtaining his known DNA sample constituted a non-consensual seizure and thus violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution, under R.14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and under the search warrant requirements. The judge denied Bly’s motion to suppress on this issue, finding that the cigarette butts and water bottle seized by the police constituted trash that was abandoned by Bly.

The thrust of Bly’s argument is that the police, suspecting they could not gain consent deceived Bly into providing the same material that would have resulted from a consensual search and seixure. Additionally, Bly argues that he did not abandon voluntarily the ite,s collected by the police, but rather was required by institutional rules to leave those items behind when he left.”

The fact of the case is in the third paragraph. And the last paragraph of the next page, it was held that,

“Based on the judge’s well supported findings, it is clear that Bly was not in custody at the time of the interview. Although he was in a police station, he had gone there voluntarily. The interview was not conducted in an interrogation room, but rather in an open door office. The investigation into McLaughlin’s murder was in its nascent stages, and Bly was interviewed only because he was on the victim’s trial schedule, and not because the police had any evidence specifically linking him to the crime. At no point during the interview was Bly told that he was a suspect. Bly stated that his attorney informed him that the police would be interested in speaking to all persons McLaughlin was prosecuting the officers acquiesced in that belief. The objective circumstances could not lead Bly to believe that this was anything other than an interview for the purposes of information gathering.”

The second case, Commonwealth v Lee Perkins (2008) SC. In this case the defendant was convicted for murder and rape. Sperms cells were detected in the victim’s vagina and rectal swab. The DNA samples were taken from there, the DNA matched with defendant’s DNA obtained from the soda can and cigarette butt used by him during interview with the police 5 years after the incident.

It is not disputed that the police wanted to obtain the evidence by this means after the defendant declined to give the samples. The police considered and it was in evidence “If I cannot get the sample from him, then we will call him for interview, interrogate him and then in the process give the drink and cigarette and take DNA from there. Held, it was admissible because he has abandoned the cigarette butt, he could not take the can of soda because of the rules and there was no expectation of privacy.

I take my Lord to the fourth page in the last paragraph,
“3. Motion to suppress. The defendant asserts error in the denial of his motion to suppress the butts of two cigarettes he smoked and the soda can from which he drank during his interrogation by police at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Concord (MCI Concord), as well as the fruits of evidence, namely, all the DNA testing. The defendant contends that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the seized evidence, especially where he declined to give police a sample of his blood for DNA testing. He contends there are prison rules that forbade him from taking the cigarette butts and soda can with him, and where the officers acknowledged a backup plan to make cigarettes and soda available to him to obtain his saliva sample for DNA testing in the event he declined to give blood sample, his failure to remove the soda can and cigarette butts cannot be deemed an abandonment of the item seized for purpose of Fourth and Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution, or art. 14 of the Massachuesetts Declaration of Right.”

The third paragraph,
“The defendant does not challenge the judge’s findings of fact. Instead he relies on the undisputed testimony of the officers that he declined to give a blood sample, and that the officers had discussed among themselves that if he declined to give a blood sample, their fall-back plan would be to collect anything he discarded that might contain a biological sample suitable for DNA testing, such as a cigarette butt.”

Last paragraph,

“The judge correctly determined that the cigarette butts had been abandoned by the defendant. Nothing prevented the defendant from bringing them with him after the interview had ended, as he had done with the balance of the pack of cigarettes. Whatever reasonable expectation of privacy he may have had in the cigarette butts was abandoned under both the State and Federation Constitutions.”

The next page, 2nd paragraph,

“With respect to the soda can, the judge correctly found that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that item, where he knew that he could not take it with him because guards at the institution reasonably would consider it contraband capable of being made into a weapon. We note that the defendant made no attempt to sanitize the item or exert control over it, and therefore it, too, could be considered abandoned. There was no error.”

My Lord, evidence was led by the prosecution through witnesses who were called by NH that at no time other than the two towels that DSAI asked back he didn’t asked for the water bottle. With regard to the standard issue of the towel, toothbrush, of course he couldn’t. So, going by the Fourth Amendment: expectation to privacy, DSAI has abandon his right with regard to the water bottle and he had no expectation of privacy which will render the evidence with regard to DNA obtained from the towel and the toothbrush inadmissible.

Now, I’m coming to the third case, State of Iowa v Peter Christian (2006) COA. Here, defendant was charged and convicted for burglary and sexual abuse. DNA evidence obtained from water bottle and fork used during an interview at a voluntary program was used against him. It matched with DNA obtained from seminal stains on victim’s underwear. It was held that he has abandoned those items and had no expectation of privacy.  The court also held that evidence obtained by trick may not be suppressed if not coercive and fundamentally unfair,
Here, instead of being interrogated by the police, he was called for a voluntarily program by the Iowa City Rape Victim Advocay Program. During the interview he was served with cake and water. You can find it at page 2 in the second paragraph.

The third paragraph says that,

“Christian filed a motion to suppress all DNA test results, claiming the DNA samples obtained from the water bottles and fork were product of an illegal warrantless search.”

At page 3, the last 6th lines below,

“Christian’s motions for directed verdict were overruled. The jury convicted Christian of sexual abuse in the third degree and acquitted him on the burglary count. The court entered a judgment of conviction and sentence in accordance with the verdict.

On appeal Christian argues the following in the brief submitted by his attorney:
1.    The court erred by not suppressing the DNA evidence secretly acquired by the state and committed further error by simultaneously finding that the subsequent search warrant affidavit contained probable cause to search if the DNA evidence was removed.”

Page 4 in the second last paragraph,

“To establish a violation of the Forth Amendment, Christian must show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the item seized. “When individuals voluntarily abandon property, they forfeit any expectation of privacy in it that they might have had.” In other words, “[v]oluntary abandonment of property in the constitutional sense occurs when an individual no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” To determine whether a person has voluntarily abandoned property, we consider whether the person intended to abandon the property. Intent to abandon the property “may be inferred from words, acts, and other objective facts.””

The next relevant paragraph could be found at page 5. The judge above the
heading “Bill of particulars”,
“Based on the foregoing facts, we do not find Clarahan’s conduct so coercive or fundamentally unfair as to deny Christian’s right to due  process of law. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling denying Christian’s motion to suppress the DNA test results seized without a warrant. Because we have affirmed on this issue, we need not address the merits of Christian’s challenge to the search warrant.”

What happened is that they served him with a water bottle. Midway the switched the bottle, they took the bottle and replaced it with another one so as not to cause the accused’s suspicion. They employed trick and the court said that it is not coercive or fundamentally unfair to have it rejected.

My last case is Kevin Piro v State of Idaho (2008) COA. Here the accused was arrested for attempted lewd conduct. While under interrogation he was given a bottle of water, a pencil and a piece of paper. He was later told to leave the bottle behind. DNA obtained from the bottle matched with DNA from sample taken from unsolved rape case. He was later charged with rape and burglary and convicted. The DNA evidence from the bottle was used against him during the trial. It was held that he had no expectation of the water bottle provided by the police during custodial and interrogation, just like in our case, just like he had no expectation of privacy in bed sheet and prison uniform provided by authorities. So, in our case, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim also have no expectation of privacy with regard to those items issued to him during his stay in the lock up.

All these cases my Lord, will show whether it is English case, African case or American case; the court had consistently admit evidence though illegally obtained so long that if ever there is any trick the trick is not so trickery. There was no inducement, no threat, and no promise. Those cases which the English court had declined to admit were only cases involving confession. In fact I was asking my learned friend to get me the particular paragraph in Hanafi or Wan Mohd Azman where J Paul said as opposed to what R v Sang said. By 2006 when Hanafi was decided there are only two cases. There is one more after R v Payne where the court actually excluded illegally obtained evidence.

There was one issue there. The prejudicial effect must not outweigh the probative value. The cases of Noor Muhammad, Boardman…

In Hanafi, paragraph 73 this is what J Paul said,

“It must be observed that except for cases such as R  v Court (1962) Crim LR 697 and R v Payne [1963] 3 All ER 848 there appear to be no other English reported cases where this discretion has been exercised.”

That is up to 2006. We are talking about when something is said to be prejudicial. When you talked about probative, the saying when something was forced, it support  and substantiate the allegation.

In Noor Muhammad, the prejudicial effect surely outweigh the probative value because we are talking about bad character evidence. Nothing to be the issue of the court. In Boardman, we are talking about similar fact evidence. Again, we are not talking about the case being tried. We are talking about evidence with regard to other cases which may afford corroboration. After all corroboration is something that confirms.

In our case, the question of balancing exercise does not arise. The question whether or not prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value does not arise because this evidence will directly confirm the commission of the offence, the DNA evidence.

If I may I refer your Lordship to the case of DPP v Boardman [1975] AC 421. At page 451 last paragraph, [read]. In Boardman, they admitted the evidence because of the striking similarity. This balancing exercise of prejudicial effect and probative value only applies to those kind of cases.

In fact it was discussed in Wan Mohd Azman that only when that evidence covers instances, cover a time and place other than what is specified in the charge, then you  need to have this balancing exercise.

But when in this case, the evidence obtained will confirm Saiful’s testimony. Saiful’s testoimony is in fact a complete story that will support the charge. All the rest, chemist report, chemist’s evidence, medical evidence, DNA; these are all    merely confirmatory of what he has said. So it is corroboration actually. And these are admissible because it tends to confirm what Saiful said.

Other than that we have also literature which I will not read. Just for your convenience my Lord, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2005, Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Prcatice 2007 and Sarkar’s Law of Evidence 16th Ed 2007; all on illegally obtained evidence and the instances which the court had applied or declined to apply and most of the cases that I cited could be found there except the American cases.

To sum up, I would say this:
(1)    defence has failed to prove the basis that the evidence obtained or collected from the cell was improper or illegal because they have not been able to prove on balance of probability that DSAI was not informed of the grounds of arrest which makes the subsequent detention unlawful;
(2)    the taking of the exhibits had nothing to do with the arrest and detention. There was no trick employed, there was no inducement or threat. The condition while he was examined and the condition in the lock up is not something that induced him to use the items that was collected later on. There was no inducement, no threat, no trick or no promise. There is nothing illegal.

But if the court is of the view that it is something improper because the arrest is illegal, then all these cases that is referred to your Lordship would help the court to arrive at a decision that this is not a proper case for your Lordship to decline, to admit evidence. Because there is nothing so tricky, nothing so coercive, there is nothing so fundamentally unfair for your Lordship to exercise your discretion.

Our stand is that there is nothing before the court either in the trial within a trial or the substantive trial which can trigger the exercise of your Lordship discretion [] to exclude admissible evidence no matter how it was obtained.

I pray for the application of my learned friend to be dismissed and order or for your Lordship to allow us to call both Supt. Amidon and Aidora to tender the respective exhibit and to be marked as P.

Much obliged.

KS:    We need time to reply.

YA:    2.30 p.m
[12.25 p.m.] Stand down.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 4 Mac 2011 March 8, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

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

PP:    Semua hadir
PB:    KS, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Ram Karpal (SN, Datuk CV Prabhakaran, Marissa dan Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB:    Zambri Idrus (for complainant)
AI hadir.

[9.23 a.m.]
Sambung bicara perbicaraan dalam perbicaraan.

MY:     Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung perbicaraan dalam perbicaraan bagi rakan saya yang bijaksana, KS untuk memanggil saksi mereka yang ketiga. Tetapi sebelum itu saya memohon untuk memanggil semula DSAI di bawah S.138 (4) Akta Keterangan untuk further cross. There are certain things that I want to ask in order for me later on to adduce the evidence during rebuttal if necessary. I believe KS has no objection.
KS:    I have no objection, YA.

Cross examination of DW1 under S.138(4) Evidence Act

TWT DW1 mengangkat sumpah di dalam BI.

Q:     Yesterday you inform the court neither you were informed the grounds of arrest at the time a few hundred meters from your house nor at the IPK nobody informs you.
A:     I was very clear that at the time of arrest and in the 20 minutes or half an hour so in the car, I kept on insisted why am I arrested and no grounds were given.

Q:    In the IPK?
A:    When we were brought up after sometimes I think Supt. Taufik…Yes, there is a document served, I may have signed the document.

Q:    Did you remember what document it is?
A:    He said “You are under arrest” or so. Yes, to that effect. That was in the IPK, YA. I was very clear yesterday I was made a reference to the fact that throughout the journey to the IPK.

Q:    Would I be correct to suggest that the document that you signed one of the was warrant of arrest?
A:    I don’t recall that the paper was warrant of arrest but certainly there is a reference to the arrest because then Supt. Taufik left soon afterwards.

MY:    I’m showing a photostat copy of a document.
KS:     I propose the original to be produced.
MY:    Wait.
KS:    You can’t show the copy of that. YA, inadmissible evidence is shown to DSAI.
MY:     At this point in time, I don’t think that we should.
YA:     If you want to masukkan secondary evidence, primary evidence..Generally you have to put in primary evidence unless you satisfy certain conditions.
MY:     Yes, I’m just showing. It won’t be marked as P because I will be calling the witness.
KS:    That’s not the point.
YA:    They are not tendering it as exhibit.
KS:    It’s the document being used for purpose of evidence to confront DSAI. That is the point.
MY:     I remember in Mona Fendi’s case this issue was raised. When the accused was arrested what was found on them was a photostat copy of a land title. The counsel insisted that the original must be produced. So, I arrested him and I found the photostat copy, what original do you want? This is real evidence. We will show later on that this is real evidence.
KS:     Forget Mona Fendi. Is there any authority to that effect?
MY:    I just want to ask DSAI whether [] or otherwise. First the question is whether or not this is the warrant of arrest that he gives you.
KS:     It should be otherwise, the original copy not the photostat copy.

Q:     Will you agree?
A:    …

KS:     YA, before DSAI reply to that we want a ruling on that. Inadmissible evidence can’t be used to confront a witness in the witness box. [] law.
MY:     YA, what I know is that in the course of cross-examination even under S.159, inadmissible evidence can be shown and the witness is asked whether he recall signing a document similar to this nature and it doesn’t have to be marked even.
KS:    There is no authority, YA.
MY:    We can read []. If we start reading all the literature then we will have this discussion. Especially if the document is required just for purpose of refreshing memory. DSAI recall signing [] a certain document. So, I just want to show could this be one of the document. Because after that I want him to look at the back of the document. There was a signature with a date there, 16.07.2008 2.45 petang. Whether or not he remembers signing the document.
YA:    Basically you are using it to refresh memory and nothing else?
MY:    My problem is this, YA. If I were to talk about S.136 on how this is admissible, after DSAI signed it Supt. Taufik make a photocopy of that. That photocopy is fact and this is the photocopy. So this is real evidence, this is what he did. You can challenge the witness later on and there is no way. But how do you change the fact that this witness whom I proposed to call will say that  around 2.45 p.m. at IPK he had this document shown to DSAI and said that “I executed the warrant on DSAI and get DSAI to sign..”.
KS:    YA, my learned friend is giving evidence. This is not a submission.
MY:    YA, under S.136 before document or any evidence is determine to be admissible, YA is at liberty to ask the party who proposed to do it in what manner this would be relevant and I’m saying it. And now we are talking about the photocopy so I will say this, because this is what the witness will say. If the court agrees with me that it is okay then this is real evidence. We are not [] it to the witness yet. This is real evidence, the thing that he did, this is the copy that he did. And I’m showing DSAI the copy that Supt. Taufik made.
YA:    Yes, KS?
KS:     With respect YA, my learned friend can’t just throw sections as he pleases. What does S.136 says? It is for the court to decide on the admissibility of evidence. How that can apply in this situation, I can’t understand. He talks about S.159.
MY:    You read s.136.
KS:    Forget S.136. S.136 talks about court to decide on the admissibility of evidence. That doesn’t apply. What does S.159 says? The evidence on refreshing memory. And S.159(3) where a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document he may with permission from the court refer to a copy of that document. A copy of that document provided the court is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. So, how does it apply? A copy. What is the meaning of a copy of document? Photostat copy is not a copy. I’ll produce the authorities in a minute if I’m given that opportunity.
What about the proviso? Provided that the court is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for non-production of the original. Where is the evidence, where is the basis for it to be satisfied of the non-production of the original. Don’t play around with sections.
MY:     YA,…
KS:     I’m not finish. This is a serious matter. Don’t chuckle. We say that S.136 is irrelevant, general provision. Of course court will decide on the admissibility of the evidence. Refreshing memory, S.159. my learned friend is relying on S.159. we also now rely on S.159. Thanks for finding it. But what does it says? A copy of the document.
YA:     So, S.159? I mean, they can rely on photostat copy provided sufficient ground given that the original copy cannot be produced. So now your complaint is because there is no evidence to show why the original is not here?
KS:     No, that’s the 2nd part. A copy, what is being produced now in which DSAI is being confronted is the photostate copy. In law, a copy does not include photostat copy. Could we have an adjournment, YA?
YA:     Come again? A copy…
KS:    A photostat copy does not come within a copy. And it is a requirement under S.76 of Evidence Act with regard to primary evidence, secondary evidence. All that is learnt in law school. My learned friend has forgotten that or perhaps being [].
YA:    I want to hear your submission.
KS:     It is my submission. It is so elementary.
YA:    Lagi?
KS:    So, could I be given an opportunity to produce the authority? I don’t rely on sections, I will rely on the authority. Short adjournment, YA. I will find it.
MY:    I know of cases that carbon copy is the original.
YA:    We are not talking about carbon copy here, we are talking about photostat copy.
MY:    Yes, but a photostat copy is still a copy. Newspaper reports can also be shown. It is discussed in detailed both in Paul’s book and Sarkar’s. But, I’m not going to agree to a stand down for my learned friend. I’ll move to another question.
KS:     YA, a ruling has to be made on this.
YA:    If they are not proceeding with that one, we can proceed.
KS:    We can’t go on. We want a ruling before you move on.
MY:    YA,…
YA:    If they are not proceeding or persuading that matters so what is the ruling for?
KS:    Of course if my learned friend is not pursuing.
MY:    I’ll come back.
KS:    He’s going to come back. We want a ruling.
MY:    Let me finish with the rest of the question and only I’ll come back. Then we can stand down for submission.
KS:     YA, we’ve made submissions. In fact my learned friend submitted, there should be a ruling.
MY:    So, can we stand down for a ruling?
KS:    And for me to get the authority.
YA:     That mean there are further submission from you?
KS:     Yes.
MY:    If there is further submission, let me finish. I’ve got one or two question.
KS:    No, on this ruling.
YA:    If he has one or two question yang tak relate dengan benda ni, we move on and then we come back for submission. Just to save time. []
KS:    Let us see what are the one or two questions are.
YA:    Yang itu tarik balik, ya.

Q:    Pertaining to this document….

KS:    Not pertaining to that document.
MY:    I’ve just got one question on it.

Q:     You remember signing certain document, but you can’t remember what exactly is the document?
A:    I recall signing a document presented by Supt. Taufik…

Q:    But you can’t remember the document?
A:    …

MY:    I move to another question.

Q:    At the time of recording of your statement, didn’t you ask Jude as why you are required there?
A:    This is not relating to the first document you talked about, isn’t  it?

Q:    No. Subsequently before you were taken to see Jude and Jude recorded your statement, prior to the recording, didn’t you ask him why you were there?
A:    Yes, I did asked why am I arrested, why am I required to give a statement. He said “Based on the police report”. I then insisted I want to see the police report. I think about 4-5 months later this police report was never produced. [] the case which was raised earlier.

Q:    Did he tell you exactly that you were there because there was an allegation by `En. Saiful?
A:    Yes.

Q:    In fact this conversation between you and DSP Jude was recorded. Are you aware of it?
A:    Yes, I’m aware of it.

Q:    And it appears in your 112 statement? []
A:    In relation to the police report, I did asked and the report was never given. Sorry, it was never read to me.

Q:    On 14 Nov 2008, your 112 statement was [] to be served on your counsel. Did you read it?
A:    I don’t recall the date.

Q:    But, would you agree that you have read your statement?
A:    I’ve seen the statement.

Q:    So did your counsel, Nair at least. []?
A:    I assume the counsel must have read it.

Q:    So, you have seen the copy of statement that was served on your counsel. Did you make any objection or any complaint that the copy of that statement that was served on you or your counsel was not the copy of the original that was recorded from you? Did you make any complaint?
A:    I did make a lot of complaints on the document served.

Q:    No. With regard to this 112 statement? Did you say that the statement is not recorded from you? The copy served on you. []
A:    I don’t recall any protest or objection on the 112 statement.

MY:     YA, I’m showing the original to DSAI of the 112 statement.

Q:     Please look at this document from page 1 till the end. See whether or not your signature appears there and can you confirm this is the statement recorded from you by Jude on 16.07.2008 and 17.07.2008?
A:    Yes, I did signed and initialled on every page.

Q:    Can you confirm this is your statement?
A:    For now, yes. But after my experience with the police and the prosecution, I’m very careful to make sure that there is no change or alterations. I’m not making it. I’ve gone through this.

Q:    Can you confirm that? If not we can compare it with the copy served to you.

KS:     Let him go through it.

A:     Ya, YA.

MY:    Can this document be marked as an exhibit for TWT? But there is only one page of this that I want to refer and mark for the purpose of this trial within a trial. I’m sorry, two pages.

Q:    First, can you read to the court aloud. Can you confirm that this thing transpired?
A:    Yes. I did signed this.

Q:    Can you please read to the court?
A:    [read: Sebelum memulakan rakaman percakapan ke atas Dato’ Seri Anwar b. Ibrahim di bawah S.112 KPJ beliau juga ada ditanya sama ada boleh rakaman video dibuat disepanjang rakaman percakapan ini dijalankan. Atas nasihat peguam, beliau telah meminta rakaman percakapan beliau dicatat sepenuhnya dan beliau akan sahkan dan rakaman video tidak diperlukan.]

Q:    Now is this particular page that is the body of the statement. Can you read it?

KS:    What page is it?
MY:    Page 2 of the actual statement.

Q:    Can you read the first portion?
A:     [read : DSP Jude: Bagi menjawab soalan saya, sebelum Dato’ Seri menandatangani borang rakaman percakapan Dato’ Seri meminta penjelasan rakaman ini dibuat bermaksud pertuduhan dan ia telah dijelaskan oleh DSP Jude bahawa terdapat satu laporan polis yang dibuat Travers Report 4350/08 oleh seorang lelaki Melayu bernama Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan yang mendakwa tuduhan Dato’ Seri meliwat beliau pada 26.06.2008 jam lebih kurang 3.00-4.00 petang di unit 11-5-1, Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur]. That is the charge.

Q:    Can you confirm that is what transpired?
A:    Ya, YA. Saya tidak pernah nafikan dari awal charge disebut. Yang saya tanya ground of arrest, apa alasan.

MY:     YA, actually this particular page that I really want to have admitted for our purpose..in order for me to have this admitted that’s why I require DSAI to look at the whole of this document. I mean, he signed all the pages of the document.

Q:    You signed on every page of the document, right?
A:    Initial.

Q:    Here it says that you asked and you were told of the allegations against you by Saiful.
A:    Yes.

Q:    You told the court yesterday you remember reading before signing that “Rakaman percakapan telah selesai”. I’m showing page 21 of this statement and the last page of the second half of the statement. Can you tell the court whether or not that appears in anyone of the pages the word or the phrase “Rakaman telah selseai”?
A:    [read- rakaman percakapan dibacakan. Rakaman percakapan ini selesai pada 16.07.2008 jam 17.42.

Q:    It says that the recording ended there?
A:    Bagi faham saya, bagi upaya saya menguasai Bahasa Melayu bila kita sebut percakapan ini telah selesai, ia telah selesai.

MY:     I leave the rest for submission, YA. That will be all my cross. So now, coming to this document, I need to put the witness to notice of this document or else I will [] the case of Chow Ben Huat which was cited before your Lordship and the case of Ong Su Chin. Even if I don’t have it marked, I brought him to notice. That’s all I need to do. So I won’t do anything at this juncture. I will call the witness if necessary, produce it again and then we’ll have a submission whether or not it is admissible. The photocopy of the document. Otherwise…
YA:     In short you are not pursuing that matter just now?
MY:    Because my duty is just to put DSAI to notice.
YA:    Re, KS?
KS:    I take it that my learned friend is not pursuing the document?
YA:    Yes.
KS:    He has come to his senses. Can I have the copy of the 112 statement?
MY:    We have supplied to them.
YA:    They don’t have it right now. Just give it to them
MY:    Can I just photostat the relevant pages that is crucial for this?
KS:    We already have a copy of that. What is the problem?
MY:    Only two pages.
KS:    The whole document.
KS:     Can we have a short break?
YA:     You can re on some other matters.
KS:     No. That one.
YA:    That’s the only one?
KS:    Yes.
MY:     If that is the only one, the two pages is only crucial.
YA:    Cannot proceed without that one?
KS:    I have to look at that one first before I can proceed.
MY:     YA, I proposed for a stand down.
KS:    I’ve been deny of the copy, YA.
YA:    You have the copy, kan?
KS:    This is served a long time ago. I must have a look at it now. I want to refresh my memory under S.159.
MY:    YA, I proposed for 15 stand down.
KS:    That’s right.
YA:     15 minutes 15 minutes la. Hari ni Jumaat, we have to stop early.
[9.52 a.m.] Stand down.

[10.31 a.m.]
MY:     May the document be marked as exhibit in TWT?
YA:     TWT P1.

TWT 1 – DSAI’s 112 statement on 16.07.2008

Re-examination of TWT D1 by KS.

Q:    Look at page 2 of TWT P1. There are 2 signatures, one is by DSP Jude Pierera on the right and there is one more which is yours?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Are you aware that a copy of the 112 statement was served on your solicitors?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And you have been shown of it?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Look at it. I refer now to your copy, the one served to your solicitors.
A:    Yes.

KS:     May we marked it as TWT D2?
YA:    Now you want to mark the copy?
KS:    Yes, the one served on him. The original was not served. There is a reason for it.

TWT D2 – A copy of DSAI’s 112 statement that is served on his counsel on 16.07.2008

Q:    Have a look at both of this document. Is there any differences in the copy supplied to you or your solicitors and the one referred to you?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Can you tell us what are the major differences? We don’t want to go into the smaller one.
A:    On page 1 there is “SULIT” in the original, there is no “SULIT” in the copy. There is …

Q:    Not only page 1? Is the entire document?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Every page?
A:    Well, I have the chance to look very fast but I certainly can identify and mark major differences.

Q:    No. The word “SULIT” first. It’s [], isn’t it?
A:    Yes. The word “SULIT” in every page…

Q:    One by one. The word or the cop “SULIT” is in every page?
A:    In every page of the original.

Q:    But not in yours?
A:    But not in the copy except for the ….

Q:    Does it appear at all?
A:    No, it does not appear at all in the copy.

Q:    I take you to page 2 of TWT P1. Is that in the copy supplied to you?
A:    Page 2 of the one referred to me earlier and the one I read is in the original with my signature is not in the copy and there is no signature.

Q:    It is not in the copy at all?
A:    Yes. Not at all. In fact the entire paging is difference. This is a new page inserted in the original is not there in the copy.

Q:    So there is an inclusion of page in TWT P1?
A:    Yes. The inclusion with both my signature and Supt. Jude Pierera signature.

Q:    But entirely missing in TWT D2?
A:    Yes.

Q:    All that is entirely missing?
A:    It is not there in the copy.

Q:    It is not there at all?
A:    Yes.

Q:    There are other minor differences there, isn’t it?
A:    Yes.

KS:    I don’t have to go into that all. I’ll leave it for submission if necessary.

Q:    I come back to the statement recorded by Mr. Jude Pierera on 16.07.2008 at 2.45 p.m. until about 5 something?
A:    Yes.

Q:    In this statement, were you cautioned?
A:    Yes.

MY:     YA, may I interject? This is a re-examination. You are not supposed to introduce something new. I did not ask on caution. I only ask with regard to whether or not he was informed, he got to know the reason of arrest. That’s all. This is re-examination.
YA:     Re must have to comply with what arise from cross. KS, you know that.
KS:     It could be relevant to some extent, YA. But it does not matter, I don’t want to []. We don’t do that.

Q:    In reference to that page in which it is recorded “Rakaman percakapan telah selesai.” Page 21.
A:    What do you want me to do? Look at the original or the copy given to us?

Q:    The original.
A:    There are differences, so i…

Q:    Oh yeah, I supposed we have to refer to both. It appears also in the copy anyway. It makes no difference, doesn’t matter. “Rakaman percakapan selesai”. Is it there?
A:    Yes.

Q:    What do you have in mind at the point of time when you signed document to the effect that rakaman percakapan telah selesai?
A:    I gave full explanation truthfully, I denied the charge and I cooperated fully with Supt. Jude. I answered every question. And when he said “Percakapan selesai”, I did asked him “Are you sure if everything is finish or settled? He said “Rakaman percakapan selesai”. So my understanding was and he did affirmed this that we are quite finish. YA, why did I pursue this? Because I want to be released. Because the only concern that he wanted a statement from me. He did cautioned me. Even if it is meant, could be deemed as incriminating, I said “No. I will give full cooperation” and I did answer. And it was completed.

Q:    What is “selesai” implied to you? Did you go back?
A:    “Selesai” which means it is finished.

Q:    And you go back home?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Were you at any time given grounds of arrest by Mr. Jude?
A:    This question was raised to Supt. Jude and as far as I can recall, it is clear to me that there was no grounds given except reading the charge, not even a police report read or shown to us.

Q:    Charge read and then you recorded your statement?
A:    Yes.

Q:    That’s all?
A:    He did cautioned.

Q:    Of course he did cautioned. And then take your statement?
A:    Yes.

Q:    No grounds initially for that matter at any point of time during the recording or the interview?

YA:    That is what he said. No ground were given. He had been saying that.

Q:    By Jude. No grounds of arrest given by him?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Except for the recording of the statement under S.112?
A:    Yes, and I did asked. I mean, I was advised by the counsel always start by asking the grounds for the arrest.

Q:    And you were not given those by Jude?
A:    I was not given those. Not by Jude.

Q:    What do you have in mind of the word “grounds”? what does it indicate to you? Grounds?
A:    The reasons, not just based on somebody’s reports. There must be reasons why you arrest a person. To me it is elementary, YA. You just don’t arrest a person and say that somebody report and that’s it. You must have grounds. The police must have some basis for the arrest.

KS:     That’ll be all for my re.
MY:     YA, with your kind permission just to ask 2 questions. One is for clarification which of the two because there are two pages here with regard to the original document.
YA:    The other question?
MY:    The second question is with regard to the second half of the statement was something that was dependant of what was recorded earlier. Something new. Just to confirm with him.
YA:     Question through court?
MY:    Yes.
YA:    Go ahead.

Q:     The clarification is this…

KS:    Subject to cross.
YA:    Of course. No, subject to re. Your are not crossing, you know. This is your witness.
KS:    I’m sorry, subject to re.

Questions through court

Q:    Dato’ Seri, you were saying that the copy you had that was served on you didn’t have this page 2. This is with regard to before the actual statement was recorded. The one that where it is stated that you asked for the whole thing to be recorded fully.
A:    Yes.

Q:    And only that are not with you? The rest are with you?
A:     YA, this page is completely out. I don’t have a copy of that page which is signed. But the rest are with me with as I noted some differences.

Q:     So, can you confirm the court that the page which you read where you asked Jude and he explained to you was in your copy? Page 2 of the actual statement, is it there in your copy?
A:    Yes.

Q:    The one that you asked?
A:    Yes.

MY:     It’s there in TWT2.

Q:    Can you refer to the statement TWT2. After page 21, that is the 2nd half of the statement. Can you just glance quickly to it ? Would you agree with me that you were questioned pertaining with something in relation to what transpired in the newspaper when you were sent to medical examination?
A:    Not entirely.

Q:    Not entirely but substantively that was the question?
A:    Factual is not too correct because part of series of questions, not the main part.

Q:    If I …
A:    I stand to be corrected, YA. It’s not really fair to get me to answer in half a minute. Can I just look at it?

YA:    2 questions dah jadi 10.
MY:    It is pertaining to that.

A:    Yes, YA. The major part was in relation to the visit to the hospital and the examination by the doctors at HKL.

MY:     That will be all.
KS:    Re-examination , YA.

Q:    Look at TWT 1, page 2. Where you signed and also did Mr. Jude.
A:    Yes.

Q:    It is not numbered but it is in the second [] in that set of document?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And my learned friend is referring to TWT 2.
A:    Yes.

Q:    In TWT 2, is it similar in the page included?
A:    No.

MY:    YA, so that my learned friend didn’t get confuse. I merely ask him to confirm that what he didn’t have is the one with regard to the video recording. Then I ask him to refer Page 2 because the second set there is explanation there written in Page 2.
YA:    Page 2 of what?
MY:    Page 2 of the actual statement.
YA:    But you only tender this part. I mean, the court is only given this part to refer to.
MY:    You have that, YA. We tender the whole thing. But I advise your interpreter maybe for your [] because you are only referring to those 4 pages only. Because while the witness has confirmed that the whole of his statement…
YA:    So, you are tendering the whole document as exhibit?
MY:    Yes. My worry is that your Lordship should not be reading the whole of the statement. So, for your purpose I advised the interpreter to only photostat this page and the page where Jude was asked the reason for the arrest…
YA:    Page berapa?
MY:    That is page 2. Explanation in page 2.
YA:    “Bagi menjawab soalan saya…”?
MY:    Yes. “Bagi menjawab soalan saya…Dato’ Seri menandatangani..”.
YA:    Okay.
MY:    And then page 21 of TWT 1 and the last page of the second part of the statement.
YA:    So, you are referring to which one?
MY:    So when I ask Dato’ Seri, he confirm that this page 2 of the actual statement he confirm he has that.
YA:    Okay.
MY:    That’s all. I’m not saying on the first part.
KS:    I refer to what my learned friend referred to.

Q:    Is there signature by you or Jude or by both? What is [] there?
A:    In reference to page 2 of the report, now that I have seen the copy, I honestly have to study whether this one showed and clear. But notwithstanding if this page 2 is being referred to now, there is no similar signature as in the new page 2.
YA:    Yang ‘bagi menjawab soalan saya?’?
MY:    Sebelum Dato’ Seri menandatangani. And then, at page 21 of TWT 1, and the last page of the statement, because …
YA:    So now you are referring to which ..
MY:    So now, when I asked Dato’ Seri to confirm that his page 2 of the actual statement, to confirm that he has that. So I am not saying about the first..

Q:    Ok. Now, (to DSAI) please look at what my learned friend referred to, did you and Jude signed on top of that?
A:    Notwithstanding the page 2 that is being referred to now, there’s no similar signature in this (pointing to TWT 1)’s page 2. I’m referring to the 2nd page 2.

Q:    Was the 2nd page 2 included is not paginated?
A:    No.

Q:    Ok, my learned friend referred to the next one’s page 2. On top of that there is endorsement isn’t it? Which is not similar to the one inserted? The wording of it, what was the difference between these two?
A:    No signature by either me or Mr. Jude at page 2.

YA:    Let me have a look at TWT 2.

(They are discussing which page, because all parties seem confused on which page is referred to).

YA:    This one is served on the counsel kan, TWT 2. The original produced by the prosecution is TWT1. So we are now at the stage of referring to the page 2 of the statement. So you asked about the difference?
KS:    Yes.
YA:    So Dato’ Seri was saying that there was difference, apa?
A:    In the page two that I am referring to now (TWT 2), there was no signature, unlike the other page 2. We can’t have 112 statements with 2 versions, that is my point YA. There are 2 versions, one sent to us that is claimed to be original, shown to me now.

Q:    What is sent to you is not a copy on the thing that they have?
A:    Clearly, what was sent to me, that was claimed to be a copy of the original, is not a copy of original.

Q:    In the first two pages of TWT 1, this is the first time you are seeing them?
A:    Yes. The first page look somewhat similar without the word ‘sulit’, without the correction of the [] and without the page number. The 2nd page, is not there in the copy supplied. In fact, in the copy supplied, there is only a signature of Jude Pereira, which looks quite different. On the original, you have the signature and the name, on the copy, we have the signature which is quite different, and there is no name. so clearly to my mind, as I seen, we are talking about 2 different documents, which are not a copy to each other.

KS:    We ask for this document to be recorded.
YA:    Everything is recorded.
KS:    The first page of TWT 1, there’s a signature with a designation. And the next one, there is nothing there, except the purported signature at the bottom on the right, YA.
AI:    YA, the signature is clearly different.

(All parties referring to both documents again)

MY:    YA, as long as we have the pages which we are referring to in the cross and the re-examination, because, we are not going to the merit or the content.
KS:    The first page?
MY:    Yes, the court is having it now.
KS:    Now?
YA:    Yes, we are having it now.
KS:    YA, that would be all.
MY:    YA, I need that TWT 2 being supplied to me, later that we can make comparisons.
YA:    So we’ll give it to you.
KS:    Our next witness is R. Sivarasa.

TWT DW3: Sivarasa Rasiah
TWT D3 mengangkat sumpah dalam English.
54 years old, now is an advocate and solicitor and also a member of parliament, Subang.

Q:    How long have you been practiced as advocate and solicitor?
A:    I started at 1987, which make me having 24 years experience.

Q:    Do you know DSAI?
A:    Yes, I know him well.

Q:    0n the 16th of July 2008, do you meet DSAI at any time? When, and under what circumstances?
A:    Well our first meeting that morning was at the MACC office in Putrajaya, where together with Datuk Param and Sankaran Nair as his counsels and solicitors, we accompanied him when he gave his statement to the MACC in respect to police report made by him raising the issue of fabrication of evidence in the speck of what is known as the investigation into the black eyed incident.

Q:    When did you leave Kuala Lumpur that morning?
A:    I can’t remember precisely. It would be early in the morning for us to travel there, I recollect that we’ve spent more than an hour recording the statement, but because of the prior appointment that earlier had been made, at IPK for his statement to be recorded at 2 p.m, we actually told the MACC recording officer,  we could not complete or rather cut short the recording of the statement at MACC and will continue it on another date.

Q:    Talk about prior appointment of DSAI, were you aware of the prior appointment?
A:    I was not personally involved in making of the appointment, but the information was confirmed to us by Mr. Nair. Certainly, we were all aware, because that’s what we represented to the MACC recording officer, I cannot recollect whether it has been recorded in that statement.

Q:    Did you accompany DSAI together with Datuk Param and Mr. Nair in the same car, or did you go separately?
A:    I think we went separately.

Q:    And then, did you come back to KL?
Q:    My recollection is yes, I came back to KL, and then we received news on DSAI’s arrest.

Q:    That would be at what time, you received the news?
A:    Roughly around 1sh, Very shortly after the arrest. The spread of news of the arrest of course like a fire after the arrest was happen, through messages, SMS and so on. When we confirmed that he was brought to IPK, and then I made my way to IPK.

Q:    And that would be at what time?
A:    Sometimes between 1 and 2.

Q:    Was any statement recorded from DSAI at IPK?
A:    Yes. At IPK after arriving, myself and Sankaran Nair were taken to something look like a meeting room, it was on the 7th floor if I’m not mistaken, and there was other police officers presence beside DSAI, I remember ACP Razali and a gentleman called Yahya. We were told that DSAI’s statement would be recorded and that would be all.

Q:    Did you present at that time when Dato’ Seri statements were recorded?
A:    Yes, with my presence because Sankaran Nair decided to leave before the recording statement.

Q:    That recording statement, it was 112 statements, recorded by Mr. Jude?
A:    Yes, Jude Pereira.

Q:    Call we call Jude for identification?

Jude dicamkan oleh Sivarasa.

Q:     You said that the statements were started about?
A:    About 2.30 p.m YA,  until right after 5 to 6 pm. DSAI was not released, and I was with him. At some point, we were told by Jude that they want to take him to Hospital for medical examination.
Q:    Did you accompany him to go to the hospital?
A:    I was not allowed to be in the police vehicle, but I followed him, yes. And I was present with him when he was with the doctors until of course when the examination started.

Q:    When you were with the doctors, what happened there?
A:    The police made a request for a blood sample, specifically for DNA samples.

Q:    By whom in particular?
A:    By officer Jude, the one who present, and he made the request.

Q:    Did DSAI asked for your advice?
A:    Yes, he consulted me and I also consulted 1 and 2 lawyers from the team, and based on that, I advised him to decline to the request. DSAI himself explained to both doctors who were present, why he was declining to the request. Because he said that he has serious doubt about the integrity of the system, based on his experience on what had happened in 1998, where blood sample misused to other purposes on so on, and he asked the doctors to give him assurance that this time it won’t happen, and of course, they couldn’t give him the assurance.After he declined, he agreed to medical examination. The doctors asked me and DSP Jude to step out, medical examination then proceeded, YA.

Q:    Anything else?
A:    After the medical examination, he was taken back to IPK, I was there, I followed him back to IPK and expecting that we had completed whatever the police requested, and he would be released, because that was the representation made to us.

Q:    Who made the representation?
A:    In the first meeting which we have ACP Razali, that was what explicitly said. When he completed the statement at about 5.30,that was my understanding of the situation, that we had completed the recording of the statements. However when we went back to the IPK, Jude then informed me that he was going to detain DSAI for that night. Naturally, I was quite upset about that, and the only response he can give me was that, they haven’t completed recording the statement.

Q:    That was the reason gave by Jude?
A:    Yes, and I said this to him, if your only need is to complete the statement, I gave you my first solicitor’s undertaking now that I would bring him back tomorrow morning to complete the recording of the statement. He said ‘no, this is my decision, we are detaining him for that night.’ With some degree of upsetness, I said to him, ‘this is the serious decision, you are detaining him’, and I said to him that ‘this is wrong’ but he still stick to his decision.
I left IPK because he was taken away from the meeting room from which he was recording the statement. I left IPK probably at late night, and I came back next morning, about 8-8.30 and DSAI was brought back to the same room, for the recording of the statement, which we finished at about half an hour to 45 minutes.

Q:    In which you were present?
A:    Yes.

KS:    I think that would be all for my questions.

Cross examination by MY.

Q:    This ACP Razali, was he the IO in this case?
A:    No.

Q:    Would you agree with me, that the recording statement is part of the investigation?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And statements were in fact recorded on that day?
A:    Yes.

MY:    That’s all, YA.
KS:    I have no re.
YA:    So that would be all for your witnesses?
KS:    No, YA. In fact, we wish to call the CID chief at that time: Dato’ Bakri, the IGP then, Musa Hassan and also I wish to call Dato’ Seri Hamid Albar. I think these witnesses is necessary in certain development YA.
YA:    Where are they now? Are they in court now?
KS:    They are not.
YA:    Why? You know you want to call them, why didn’t you sepina them? Why don’t you do it earlier?
KS:    We can’t do it in just a day, YA. I think that is necessary YA, for this trial within a trial, for your Lordship to exactly know what had happened. I pray for your Lordship to give us this opportunity.
YA:    Can I see both parties in my chamber please?
[11.21]    Stand down
[11.23]    PP and PB masuk ke dalam chamber.
:Keluar dari Chamber.

KS:    My lord that is the only case for defence, for the trial within a trial.
MY:    YA, saya memohon untuk memanggil saksi rebuttal. Panggil Supt. Taufek.

TWT P1: Supt. Taufek bin Abdullah
Sekarang sedang bercuti untuk melanjutkan pelajaran selama 18 bulan, umur: 49 tahun.

Q:    Pada Julai 2008 di mana Supt bertugas, dan sebagai apa?
A:    Semasa itu saya bertugas di Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Bukit Aman Bahagian Siasatan Khas, D9.

Q:    Pada 16.7.2008, adakah Supt Taufek melakukan tangkapan ke atas mana-mana orang awam?
A:    Ya, saya ada melakukan tangkapan ke atas DSAI.

Q:    Ada di mahkamah hari ini?
A:    Ada.

DSAI dicamkan oleh Supt Taufek.

Q:    Pada masa tangkapan, adakah Supt memberitahu beliau mengapa beliau ditangkap, atau kalau tak diberitahu adakah ditanya oleh DSAI atau oleh sesiapa yang berada bersamanya?
A:    Ada, saya ada memberitahu sebab-sebab tangkapan, terutama ada ditanya oleh seorang peguam, Encik Sankaran. Saya beritahu dia saya menangkap Dato’ Seri untuk kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan, iaitu satu kesalahan yang lazim ditangkap.

Q:    Masa beritahu Nair ini, di mana DSAI berada?
A:    Dia berada dalam kereta, tetapi pintu telah dibuka dan tak salah saya dia sedang berhubung di telefon.

Q:    Kepada DSAI sendiri, ada Supt. beritahu?
A:    Ada. Selepas ditanya itu, saya bercakap dengan DSAI, bahawa saya harus menangkap DSAI, dan minta beliau mengikut saya.

Q:    Selain daripada memberitahu secara lisan, ada atau tidak beritahu melalui cara lain kepada DSAI mengapa beliau ditangkap?
A:    Selepas tangkapan dibuat, apabila sampai di Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontijen Kuala Lumpur, IO kes iaitu DSP Jude telah menyerahkan kepada saya satu borang tangkap dan minta saya menyempurnakan borang tangkapan tersebut.

Q:    Adakah anda menyempurnakannya?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Ada awak buat apa-apa mengenai waran itu?
A:    Saya ada mencatitkan masa dan lain-lain. Saya juga ada minta DSAI untuk menandatangani borang tersebut.

Q:    Kemudian? Ada waran tersebut pada awak?
A:    Waran itu saya telah serahkan kepada IO bersama-sama dengan IC dan sebagainya.

Q:    Supt Taufek ada apa-apa salinan?
A:    Saya ada buat satu salinan fotostat.

Q:    Pada masa bila buat salinan?
A:    Pada hari yang sama, selepas menyempurnakan dan menandatanganinya. Saya buat salinan untuk simpanan saya.

Q:    Encik ingat bila waran itu dikeluarkan?
A:    Kalau tak salah saya adalah pada 15hb Julai.

Q:    YA, saya ingin merujuk saksi ini satu salinan fotokopi waran. Cuba lihat di belakangnya. Mula-mula boleh Encik sahkan adakah ini salinan yang dibuat oleh kamu?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Dan adakah ini salinan yang kamu buat dalam fail kamu?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Boleh beritahu masa kamu menyempurnakan waran itu, adakah kamu tunjuk saja, atau kamu baca ke?
A:    Saya menunjukkan dan membacakan kepada DSAI.

Q:    Boleh beritahu Mahkamah, di mana tandatangan DSAI?
A:    Di sebelah kanan.

MY:    Di peringkat ini,saya ingin menandakan waran ini sebagai eksibit. Can we mark first as ID.
YA:    Kan dia kata dia buat salinan, yang asal dalam IP kan?
MY:    Ini salinan yang dia buat dan dia simpan. This is what I talked about Mona Fendy. This is real evidence. We mark as ID, but in the course of the whole submission, we will make submission on that.
KS:    YA, this is elementary.
YA:    Ya, they want to take the risk. Kalau tak boleh turn into P, itu on them lah. ID TWT 3.

Satu salinan fotokopi waran ditanda sebagai ID TWT 3.

Q:    Taufek, siapa yang mengarahkan kamu menangkap DSAI?
A:    Saya mendapat arahan untuk menangkap DSAI daripada Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan, Dato’ Seri Bakri bin Mohd Zain.

Q:    Arahan ini kamu terima secara langsung ke, atau melalui telefon, atau melalui perantaraan?
A:    Secara langsung.

Q:    Apa arahannya?
A:    Adalah untuk menyediakan pasukan untuk menangkap DSAI sekiranya Dato’ Seri di dalam perjalanan tidak menunjukkan untuk terus ke IPK seperti yang telah diberitahu.

Q:    Sekiranya dalam perjalanan daripada mana?
A:    Saya dimaklumkan dari Putrajaya, dia tidak terus ke IPK Kuala Lumpur, dia harus ditangkap.

Q:    Dan kamu tangkap kerana sebab itu?
A:    Ya.

MY:     Itu sahaja soalan saya YA.

Cross-examination by KS

Q:    Encik Taufek telah berada dalam pasukan polis untuk berapa lama?
A:    Selama 29 tahun.

Q:    Masa yang panjang bukan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Ada pengalaman yang luas?
A:    Setakat 29 tahun.

Q:    Hari itu tangkapan di buat di mana?
A:    Kalau tak silap saya, adalah di Jalan Segambut 61/1.

Q:    Tanpa waran?
A:    Semasa melakukan tangkapan, memang tiada waran.

Q:    Jadi ada 2 tangkapan yang dibuat hari itu?
A:    Satu tangkapan.

Q:    Satu tangkapan tanpa waran, dan satu tangkapan menggunakan waran? Dua tangkapan bukan?
A:    Satu tangkapan.

Q:    Tangkapan asal di mana?
A:    Di Jalan Segambut.

Q:    Satu atau 2 tangkapan? Kamu ada nyatakan tadi, di IPK ada guna waran. Satu tangkapan di Segambut, dan satu lagi di IPK dengan waran?

YA:    Tangkapan maksud dia, seorang OKT, DSAI kamu tangkap dia 2 kali. Bukan maksud dia 2 orang yang terlibat. Faham?
A:     Faham YA. Tangkapan adalah di Jalan Segambut dan penyempurnaan waran tangkap adalah di IPK.
YA:    I think you put in your submission lah. This is what he understood, whether right or wrong.

Q:    Waran dikeluarkan bila, dan oleh siapa?
A:    Menurut waran itu, adalah pada 15 Julai 2008, dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Majistret Kuala Lumpur Wilayah Persekutuan.

Q:    Dan waran itu ada pada simpanan siapa?
A:    Waran ini diserahkan oleh IO semasa di IPK.

Q:    Di dalam simpanan siapa?
A:    IO kes.

Q:    Ketika di tempat tangkapan di Segambut, kamu katakan tadi kamu ada nyatakan sebab tangkapan kepada Encik Nair?
A:    Ya, peguam itu bertanya dengan saya.

Q:    Ya lah, dia tanya dan awak maklumkan dia?
A:    Ya, saya maklumkan dia tentang sebab tangkapan.

Q:    Apa ayat yang digunakan?
A:    Saya memberitahu saya buat tangkapan ini di bawah Seksyen 377B KK, satu kesalahan yang lazim ditangkap.

Q:    Itu sahaja?
A:    Itu sahaja.

Q:    Taufek, tidak boleh bercakap bohong dalam kandang saksi. Kamu telah mengangkat sumpah tadi.
A:    Saya telah mengangkat sumpah dan saya bercakap benar.

Q:    Encik Nair telah memberi keterangan, dan dia kata Encik Taufek tidak memberitahu apa-apa sebab ke atas penangkapan DSAI walaupun dia tanya banyak kali?
A:    YA, saya telah beritahu seperti mana yang telah saya maklumkan.

Q:    Dan kamu kata tadi, kamu telah beritahu sebab tangkapan kepada DSAI ketika beliau berada dalam kereta. Itu pun adalah satu pembohongan.
A:    Seperti mana yang telah saya beritahu tadi, saya telah maklumkan beliau juga.

KS:    That would be all.

Re-examination by MY.

Q:    Cuma satu soalan YA. Encik Taufek ada apa-apa sebab untuk tidak memberitahu Encik Nair dan DSAI tentang sebab apa dia ditangkap?
A:    Tidak ada, YA.

YA:    Ok, terima kasih ya.
MY:    Saya tidak akan memanggil saksi rebuttal lain, YA.
YA:    Yes, now submission.
KS:    YA, this is the important things for you to consider. We want to ask for sometimes to prepare the submission, and probably that would be on Tuesday

morning. We will take sometimes to go through.
YA:    Either petang ini or on Monday lah.
MY:    I prefer this to be submit this afternoon YA, but if your Lordship thinking in indulging my learned friend, perhaps the latest is on Monday. I think we have ample time then. Because this is their application, I’m sure they had thinking about what issue and things that they want to use in their submission.
YA:    Yes, you should be ready in fact by this afternoon pun. Never mind lah, since hari ini pun hari Jumaat, kalau kita buat petang karang pun, maybe takkan siap. So, Monday lah, at 8.30 a.m.

[12.11] Adjourn.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 3 Mac 2011 March 7, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Story, Sodomy II.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

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


MY:    Kes ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan dalam perbicaraan berikutan bantahan rakan saya, KS, berkaitan dengan penangkapan dan penahanan.
KS:    DSAI will be giving evidence, under oath. SN will be the witness in this trial within a trial.
YA:    So he shouldn’t be here.
KS:    Yes, he shouldn’t be here. He will go.
YA:    Yes, Mr. Karpal?
KS:    Can we call DSAI?

TWT D1: Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim
63 tahun, Ketua Pembangkang di parlimen Malaysia, alamat masih sama.

DSAI angkat sumpah dalam BM.

KS:    Do you wish to giving evidence in English or BM?
AI:    Saya pohon kebenaran untuk cakap dalam Bahasa Inggeris, memandangkan beberapa isu yang dibangkitkan dengan Datuk, itu agak teknikal  berdasarkan keterangan awal, kalau boleh saya ingin berBahasa Inggeris.
YA:    It is your right, tapi kena angkat sumpah semula dalam BI.

DSAI angkat sumpah sekali lagi dalam BI.

Q:    Dato’ Seri, when was you were being arrested?
A:    16th of July 2008, 1 p.m.

Q:    Let us start on the very beginning. On the 3rd of July 2008, can you tell us what happen?
A:    At about 9 a.m, I was called by the MACC Putrajaya to give evidence to MACC with regard to my earlier police report on the fabrication of evidence in the 1998’s assault by the then IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor against the AG Tan Sri Ghani Patail and the then IGP Musa Hassan. I was there accompanied by my 3 counsels, Datuk Paramcumaraswamy, Sivarasa, and Mr. SN Nair.

Q:    Tell us what happened there?
A:    At 10 a.m approximately we were brought in by Tuan Sazali of MACC for series of interview and questions with regards to the police report and he took down extensive notes. At about 12, I then informed him that I have an appointment, I have been summoned by the police to go to IPD at 2 pm. I requested that the interview be referred to a later date to allow me to go to police station on time.

Q:    Which is at the IPK Jalan Tuah?
A:    Yes.

Q:    When you were told [] prior to go to Putrajaya?
A:    I was Informed around 14th July by Sankaran Nair who was in touch with Supt. Jude Pereira. Then I was supposed to appear on the 16th. But I have told Sankaran Nair to inform Supt. Jude that I’ve been [] on the earlier date given by MACC, so he requested for 2 pm, and this was agreed upon by both parties; Jude and Sankaran Nair on my behalf.

Q:    You were said that you go to Putrajaya on the 16th together with 3 counsels on which you mentioned earlier. You have to leave Putrajaya for the purpose of coming to KL to give your statement?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You said you were together with Datuk Param at that time?
A:    Yes.

Q:    []?
A:    The officer, Sazali was kind enough and he make notes of that. And I believe this was written by him to say that he has to defer the investigation until a later date because Anwar has an appointment with the police at IPK at 2 pm at that particular day.

Q:    You left Putrajaya together with Datuk Param?
A:    Yes we left soon afterwards, and first sent Datuk Param to the Golf Club at Mont Kiara, and then I with Sankaran Nair and Sivarasa went straight to my house for Zohor prayer so that I can come back to IPK on time at 2 o’clock.

Q:    During the journey to your home, did anything happen?
A:    Sankaran Nair was first being in communication with Supt Jude, who was curious about my whereabouts, and Sankaran Nair said that we were then on our way to Segambut. We were then will be at IPK as scheduled at 2 p.m. And Supt Jude confirmed then; yes, so we proceeded to Segambut.

Q:    Do you identify Jude?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Call him for identification.
A:    Yes, this is Supt Jude.

Supt Jude dicamkan.

Q:    What happen then?
A:    On the way to my house in Segambut, and then immediately saw a mark vehicle blocked the route with few others police petrol cars and at about 10-15 commando special force, UTK squad, with balaclava on and with submissions guns around the area. So we have to stop abruptly.

Q:    What would be the time?
A:    Close to 1 pm.

Q:    These commandos from UTK, were they armed?
A:    Yes, I could see from the vehicle, with Sankaran Nair sits in the in front, they were armed.

Q:    In what way were they armed?
A:    I believe it is the submission guns.

Q:    You at that point of time, was in the car?
A:    Yes. I seated at the back, and Sankaran Nair was sitting in front beside the driver.

Q:    What happen there?
A:    Of course we have to stop. I remained in the car, Sankaran Nair met the officer who was dressed in uniform. One officer was in uniform, and then he approached the car, I overheard the conversation. I was asked to remain in the car and Sankaran Nair asked question to the officer.

Q:    Do you overhear the conversation between SN Nair and the officer?
A:    YA, you can expect the standard question like why are we stopped, what are you want to do and he said “arahan untuk menangkap DSAI.”

Q:    How could you hear that from your car?
A:    The car window, I make sure that..because I wanted to go out from the car but Sankaran Nair stopped me from coming out from the car  before he could settle with the police officer.

Q:    What was the rest of the conversation?
A:    Sankaran Nair of course said that we were, Anwar was returning to the house for Zohor prayer, and he was summoned to meet Jude at 2p.m, so why did you need to arrest him now?

Q:    Did the officer reply?
A:    The officer merely said that “Arahan dan saya mesti bawa DSAI ke motokar saya untuk dibawa ke IPK. Saya diminta menangkap DSAI ke IPK dengan kenderaan saya.”

Q:    What else the conversation between them?
A:    YA, from what I could recall, Mr. Nair keep on repeating the questions like “what was the charge”, and the officer, I must say that he was quite polite and he wasn’t rude and just say, “look sir, saya terima arahan untuk menangkap DSAI”.

Q:    What happened?
A:    Then, Mr. Nair approached me and said that I have to come down from the car and move on to the other police vehicle.

Q:    So you go down?
A:    Yes but I am very upset, I was quite displeased, and I said to the police officer; “I’m going to the police station, so what is the point”? Mr. Nair then insisted that he will join me in this car. The police politely said to me, “Dato’ Seri, arahan adalah tangkap dan tolong datang ke motokar saya”. I said to Nair, “all right”, and then I followed.

Q:    Were you at any time given ground for your arrest by the officer?
A:    No, Sankaran Nair insisted, and the standard replies were “arahan, tangkap, naik motokar saya”. And the same position when I went to the other car, police vehicle, I asked the officer..(tak habiskan jawapan)

Q:    What did you asked?
A:    I said; “Apasal buat kat saya macam ni lagi?”

Q:    Very polite?
A:    He was polite, I must say. He was not rude, and he knew I was angry in fact, and he said “saya terima arahan, saya harap DSAI ikut saya”. Saya kata; “tapi, berapa kali dah? Dan saya nak pergi ni, dah bagitahu Jude.

Tuan tahu, pasal apa”? “Nak pukul saya?” I did ask repeatedly, because every time YA bila polis nak tangkap, trauma saya ialah kena pukul. Jadi saya tanya dia, dan dia bagitahu, “we will not beat you up”.

Q:    This officer, he sat with you, in the car?
A:    He was sitting at the front seat, I was at the backseat in the middle, and both to the right and left were the commando from UTK. So I was sitting in the middle.

Q:    They were in uniform?
A:    Senior officer in front was in uniform, but the UTK commando staffs were not in uniform.

Q:    The officer, do you at any time know his identity?
A:    Yes, he is very fair, wear spectacles…

Q:    Did he mention his name?
A:    He did mention I suppose, but I cannot recall his name.

Q:    Can you identify him?
A:    Yes.

Supt Ahmad Taufik bin Abdullah dicamkan.

Q:    Upon reaching the IPK, where did he take you?
A:    He escorted me to I can’t remember what floor.

Q:    What was the room that you were taken?
A:    YA I was brought to one large meeting room.

Q:    Who was in the meeting room?
A:    Not immediately but few minutes later some other senior officers appeared. Supt. Taufek left, I recall Supt Jude was there, the chief of the commando, Tuan Yahya and also a very senior officer who is in charge of police legal affairs, Tuan Razali.

Q:    DSP Yahya, he was here the other day giving evidence?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Tell us what happen?
A:    Of course I kept on asking them about…(tak habiskan jawapan)

Q:    Before that, lawyers were there, at that time?
A:    Yes, at that time, few minutes afterward, Mr. Sankaran Nair appeared, and join us.

Q:    Any other lawyer there?
A:    Mr. Sivarasa joined a bit later.

Q:    What happen there?
A:    I started by asking all the senior officers on “who gave this instruction, you know that I am supposed to appear, why am I arrested?”. And the standard answer is that I need to cooperate and there were keen to continue with the investigations and asked for my statement. But I said to them that “I have already agreed, and then why did you arrest me, just for asking my cooperation to give statement.”

Q:    Did you make statements that day?
A:    Yes, sometimes later I was escorted to a smaller room by a police sergeant, 5 to 10 yards away, and Jude Pereira was there and also one of my counsel, Sivarasa.

Q:    For what purpose?
A:    I was told to give statement to be recorded under Section 112 of CPC.

Q:    Was the statement recorded?
A:    Yes, about 2.30 until about 5.30 also, Jude Perreira asked some question, and I gave him answers.

Q:    Did you sign the statement?
A:    Yes, after completion, Jude said he was finished, and I remembered asking him “are you sure?” and he said “yes” so the statement recorded “sudah selesai” jam 5.40…

Q:    You were shown the statement?
A:    Yes, and I signed on every page.

Q:    What was stated on the end of the paper?
A:    Selesai.

Q:    What were the exact words?
A:    ‘Percakapan selesai’ and I asked him “are you sure there are no other questions?” Because I keen to go back home, and then he answered “yes” and then I signed.

Q:    And it is recorded that ‘rakaman percakapan selesai’?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Then, what happen?
A:    I was brought back to the main meeting room. It was very late for Asar prayer, and they gave the facilities for Solat Asar. Then, I just waited there, the senior officers appear, and from time to time I was asking them, “You told me the main purpose is to take my statement, I have completed my statement, but why am I here”? And they said you just wait for a while.

Q:    Anything happen after that?
A:    I waited, and nothing happen, and after maghrib prayer, around 8 o clock, Jude said to me, that we are going to the hospital now, and then they escorted me to HKL.

Q:    Any particular room?
A:    I believe it was 20 something room, 28 I supposed.

Q:    Were you examined there?
A:    Yes I was brought in, and Jude entered the room with me and my counsel Sivarasa. We were met by director of the hospital but they all left, leaving Jude Pereira, Sivarasa and one consultant surgeon – E Boon Leong and one consultant physician- Dato Jayendran Sinnadurai.

Q:    Did they request anything?
A:    They gave me certain forms, they want blood sample for DNA, hair and then some body swabs and then I said what is the law and what is the requirements, and then they were said that they want to get the blood sample for the purpose of DNA from me.

Q:    Did you agree to it?
A:    No, I said let me consult with my counsel. So I did consult with my counsel, and my counsel advised to cooperate to all the examinations, but not to give the samples.

Q:    You complied with the advice of the counsels not to give the blood sample?
A:    Yes, the doctors asked me again, I answered, one, it was the legal advice, second is my personal experience in 1998, where we have in evidence for fabrication of evidence, and blood sample is stolen from HKL.

Q:    Were you being examined then?
A:    Yes, but before that, I told the doctors that I don’t want to be examined in front of my lawyers, the police officers, the nurses, and they complied. So all the other including Jude Pereira had to leave and waited at the door, and these 2 doctors, asked me to take off my pants, coat, shirt, leaving me only with my singlet and underwear. And then after checking the upper part, I was asked to remove my underwear to measure private part, the length of my pubic hair, which is really degrading and demeaning and then they check my penis and anus.

Q:    That was the extent of the examination?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Any swabs taken?
A:    No, but all the external, the anus and the penis part were examined using all the cotton buds and whatever, except the insertion of the equipment was not done because I did not agree to those.

Q:    After the examination were you taken back to the police station?
A:    After the examination, the doctor asked me number of questions regarding the alleged sodomy and I cooperated and reply, after taking quite extensive notes, and after about 45 minutes, my examination completed and I left the hospital.

Q:    And you were taken back to the IPK?
A:    Yes, and brought to the same meeting room and I waited there for some time.

Q:    What would be the time when you reach IPK?
A:    About 11 o clock I came back. But YA, repeatedly I asked, and they all say that after the examination, you’re going back. I asked Jude, and Sankaran Nair asked Jude, and he said after your statement recorded, you’re going back home.

Q:    Did they send you home?
A:    No. After 11.30, they just said, Dato’ Seri, you are required to be here, and we will escort you to the cell. I said, this is strongly unfair, you told me that you will release, and why do I need to be detain? Standard answer by

the police, that they got instruction to put me in the cell.

Q:    Before went to the lock up?
A:    YA, I was brought in into the lockup, an hour later. At that time, when I first brought in, I don’t remember been given anything, but all together I remember all items given to me. One hour later I was brought back to the meeting room where Azizah and Nurul Izzah were there. I was allowed to meet them for about 15 minutes, and they said they brought.(tak habiskan jawapan)

Q:    Did Yahya give you anything?
A:    Yes, Azizah brought in, but I wasn’t allowed to touch and take anything. She was passing them to Yahya, and what was given other than the small white towel which was provided…(tak habiskan jawapan}

Q:    What did exactly Yahya give you?
A:    Two medium size towels, toothbrush, toothpaste and soap and the bottle mineral water.

Q:    Any towel?
A:    One white towel, one very small towel.

Q:    This small towel, did you remember the type of it?
A:    I don’t remember anything.

Q:    If it shown to you, can you identify it? Good Morning towel?
A:    Yes.

Q:    In the lock up, were you alone?
A:    Yes. In the lock up I was alone; of course there were guards there that you can see from distance, because this is the lock up on its own. This lock up has steel bars on both sides, and I did appeal to Tuan Yahya because of on my back condition, I cannot be left on the semens floor, which was very cold.

Q:    The lock up was it air conditioned?
A:    Yes I believe it was, and it is part of the office of the security area. So it was very cold, and the semens floor was really cold, and you can’t lean on the wall, because it just only steel bars on 4 corners. So you have to actually, sleep on the semen floor.

Q:    What is the condition of this lock up?
A:    YA, I don’t expect VIP treatment but I don’t really regard it of being a normal lock up, it was deployable, [] and there was no washroom but the laboratory was awfully dirty.

Q:    You placed in the lock up at what time?
A:    From 11 until about 8.30 on the following day.

Q:    You were putting there in the night?
A:    Yes, 11.30.

Q:    You were taken out from the lock up at any time?
A:    At about 12 something, about 15 minutes meeting with Azizah, Nurul Izzah with the presence of police officers, and then I was brought back to the police lock up.

Q:    Was there any statement taken at the morning?
A:    Yes, 8.30 in the morning I was brought back to the meeting room for few minutes then Jude Pereira instructed me to go to a small room where he said he wanted to continue as he has now some additional question and lawyer Sivarasa was there.

Q:    And there were statement taken from you?
A:    Yes. I did protest on two grounds; 1) he promised that I will be released after the statement taken previously; 2) he said that he had finished recorded statement from me. But he says no, there are more questions he needed to ask, and that one is under Section 112 of CPC so I have to obliged.

Q:    When were you []
A:    I was there from approximately 8.30 to 9.30 Less than one hour.

Q:    Was the statement signed by you?
A:    Yes. The same procedure were followed, I was cautioned, I re-read, make corrections, every page signed.

Q:    What happened after that? After you have completed making your statement.
A:    I was brought back to the meeting room and asked to wait.

Q:    You waited until when?
A:    I waited for few hours and I think Tuan Yahya and Tuan Razali mentioned to me that “Yes, we are waiting for your car  and you’ll soon be released”.

Q:    So, you are allowed to go home?
A:    Yes, YA. For medical treatment.

Q:    You went back home?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And after that for medical treatment?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You left at about 12.30?
A:    Yes.

Q:     Why medical treatment?
A:    Because I was in excruciating pain. I was given immediately [] jab.

KS:     That would be all for my question.

Cross-examination by MY

Q:     Dato’ Seri, how long was Mr. Nair talking to this officer who were there to effect the arrest of you?
A:    About 5 minutes.

Q:    5 minutes. 300 seconds. During that time you were saying that at no time the police officer told you that you were arrested because of this case?
A:    No. YA, to be honest, not only Mr. Nair asked the question, I asked the question in the car and there was no answer given.

Q:    I put it to you Supt. Ahmad Taufik informed you that you were arrested because of this offence.
A:    YA, no time did he…I mean, he was very polite, I wouldn’t deny that. But I kept on repeating and he said “Arahan tangkap Dato’ Seri pergi ke IPD”

Q:    Upon reaching the IPK where you were placed in the meeting room, there were a number of senior officers there. Didn’t anyone of them tell you that why you were there? About the arrest, the ground of arrest?
A:    They were there, yes and most of the discussion was about the need to get me to give a statement to Jude Pierera.

Q:    And the statement is pertaining to the report?
A:    Jude Pierera during 112 statement…

Q:    You knew then the statement required from you was pertaining the report lodged by Saiful Bukhari?
A:    Yes, by Jude Pierera in the meeting room.

Q:    Not only you knew that, you were told.
A:    I was told in the room, not in the meeting room, the second room, the smaller room where we went with Sivarasa that is recorded under S.112 with reference to this case.

Q:    In fact way back on 14.07.2008 you knew you were required to go there for the purpose.
A:    On 14.07.2008, I was told by Sankaran Nair that I am supposed to go to IPK or IPD to give a statement to Jude Pierera.

Q:    Was there any other offences that you could think of which made the police arrested you on that day?
A:    I commit no offence, YA. And you want to say that? What have not they said to me? Antinational treason, Yahudi agent, I don’t know what they want me for. There are 101 allegations in the daily papers, including not wearing a Malaysian batik.

Q:    As far as you are concern, there was only one report against you during that material time and that report was by En. Saiful?
A:    There are a few reports made against me on political issues including the one made by Saiful Bukhari’s.

Q:    But on 14.97.2008 you were informed you were required to give statements pertaining to the report?
A:    As far as I could recall there was nothing specific.

Q:    Because it was your counsel who told you?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You said Nair was in communication with Jude on 16.07.2008?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And you were told about it by Nair?
A:    I was in the car with Nair when Nair was in phone conversation with Jude Pierera.

Q:    You yourself didn’t hear Jude?
A:    Yeah, I heard Nair having a conversation.

Q:    You heard him having conversation but you personally wouldn’t know whether or not that person with whom Nair was having conversation was Jude. You couldn’t confirm that until Nair told you.
A:    Yes. That is very consistent with what I told the MACC at 12.00 p.m.

Q:    Would you agree with me right from the time you were taken by Supt. Taufik until you were released the next day the police had been treating you with respect. They treated you well, no physical abuse and nothing. Do you agree with me?
A:    It is true that there is no physical abuse but no question of the fact that I was treated were alike Botak Chin’s standard of high [] criminal. No normal person is ever placed in that lock-up.

Q:    So, your problem is with regard to the condition of the lock-up, not the treatment?
A:    Not the lock-up, the way I was treated. I was not told what was the offence, I was dragged like Al-Qaeda agent.

Q:    You didn’t say that you were dragged. You said the officer was very polite to you.
A:    The officer was polite. I don’t deny that. And I volunteered a statement. I was not asked.

Q:    You didn’t say you were dragged. You cannot say that. I mean you have to talk about fact. Were you dragged into the car?
A:    YA, what do you called that? In this condition with machine guns, armed team police cars. You say that is a normal arrest, YA?

Q:    Were you physically dragged into the car?
A:    There was no physical abuse.

Q:    You were taken to the hospital?
A:    But being in the lock-up, sleeping on the cement floor, is that not physical abuse?

MY:    YA, my complaint will be the same with the defence counsel. I ask question, you answer. KS will ensure you explain.

Q:    You were taken to the hospital and were asked to give your blood specimens and you refused on advice of the counsel. Who is the counsel?
A:    The entire team from Haji Sulaiman downwards had always briefed me and at that point in time Sivarasa was there and prior to that Nair. All persistently advise me and I have explained it to the doctors. One of the doctors agreed to me. It is very important. [] nodded and said “I appreciate your predicament”.

Q:    Did you refuse and did you know they wanted this for purpose of investigation?
A:    I knew there were attempts to fabricate and [] unfair.

Q:    Did you know that they wanted this for the purpose of the investigation? Because you told the court that the doctor asked you about this alleged sodomy. So, you knew it is for that purpose?
A:    I did explain to the doctors and the doctors did record it.

Q:    That is not the answer. Did you know that they wanted the blood specimens for the purpose of this investigation?
A:    Yes, they told me and I explained to them the experience both in 1998, the fabrication, the [] charges and the continuing attempt now, YA. It is not something I’m saying it now in the court. I said it to the police and to the doctors.

Q:    Dato’ Seri, the other question was this. You were given a mineral water. Would you agree with me that this mineral water was given to you when you were placed in the meeting room? In fact you had a drink there and brought this bottle back.
A:    Yes. YA, whatever was given at any time before you enter the lock up, none could be brought by me. It has to be given by the police officer. Whether the same bottle was used I wouldn’t know.

Q:    Most of the time you were with your lawyers?
A:    No. Most of the time I was with the police.

Q:    In the meeting room you were with your lawyers, when you were arrested you were with your lawyers, upon reaching there the lawyers were waiting for you. In fact before your statement was recorded, would you agree that you had meeting with your family members first? Because statement was only recorded at 3.00 o’clock. And you were there at 1.00 something.
A:    My family members were not there.

Q:    Your lawyers were there?
A:    Yes, my lawyers were there. My family members were not allowed to be brought in until late night.

Q:    Would you agree that statement was, in fact you can confirm that statements were recorded from you from 3-8 on the 16.07.2008?
A:    2.30-5.30.

Q:    Before that?
A:    I was asked to sit in the meeting room alone with the police officers coming back and forth.

Q:    And then the next day, between 8.30-9.30?
A:    Yes.

Q:    And this time in the presence of your lawyers?
A:    Yes.

Q:    In fact when all the statements taking you were with your lawyers?
A:    Yes.

Re-examination by KS

Q:    You said just now Mr. [eee bue leong] said “Dato’ Seri, I understand your predicament”. He said that?
A:    Yes. YA, there are two doctors, one Is consultant physician [datuk dr. jeyandran] and one is consultant surgeon [ee bun leong]. In medical report, only Jeyandran signed, but EE Bun Leong did not. signed but not []. Jeyandran was asking me for blood samples, Ee bun Leong said “Dato’ Seri, I understand the predicament to your deciosn. You are not compelled to do anything. You are right”. Because I said to thenm “:You follow my case, you know blood samples were stole from HKL in 1998”. So ee bun leong I could sense that he was listening and said “I leave it to you, I understand”

Q:    And you are aware that he did not signed the medical report?
A:    Yes, he did not signed. His name appear, his position, but he did not signed.

Q:    You used the word “dragged” just now. Anything in literal or []?
A:     [], but I was not physically dragged. That’s why I volunteered the statement from the beginning, and the police was polite.

YA:    I understand that it is not physically dragged.
KS:    My learned friend gives the other impression just now when I questioned Dato’ Seri.
YA:     Teruskan.

Q:    Were you ever at any time given grounds of arrest?
A:    The point of arrest until the meeting room, all the senior officers was there but none of them made any reference to the charge. Only when I went to the room with Siva with Jude Pierera, Jude Pierera did mentioned the police report and the charge. Even at that time police report was not given. We appealed to him “Please show us that report, it was not given to us”.

Q:    I’m talking about ground of arrest. Grounds of arrest were never given to you at any time?
A:    No.

Q:    Right from the time you were arrested to the time when you are released?
A:    It is established fact that the police report was not given to us and I was not told of the ground of arrest.

Q:    Did they give you grounds of arrest? They took your statement. Did they give you the grounds of arrest?
A:    No. they did not. They just said there is a police report and I asked where is it and it was not given to me. I was not given any basis but they said “You are required under S.112 CPC” and I said “I understand the law”.

Q:    When you take the statement, no mention of the ground of arrest?
A:    No.

KS:     No further question.
YA:     Next witness will be Sankaran nair?
KS: []

TWT DW2: Sankaran Nair
TWT DW2 affirm the oath in English.
Advocate & Solicitor. 55 years old.

Q:    On 16.07.2008, did you go to Putrajaya together with DSAI?
A:    I did.

Q:    What was the purpose of going there?
A:    I was acting as solicitor for DSAI in the matter of his report to ACA for certain matters.

Q:    Tell us what happened. From where did you go and with whom, apart from DSAI.
A:    I and another lawyer, Mr. Sivarasa met at DSAI house and we fetched Datuk Param along the way and we proceeded and reached there at about 10.00 a.m.

Q:    And the purpose is for DSAI to give a statement?
A:    To give a statement in respect of his police report against Tan Sri Ghani and Tan Sri Musa Hassan for black eye incident.

Q:    How long were you there together with Dato’ Seri at the MACC office in Putrajaya?
A:    He was supposed to give the statement for the entire day but DSAI was aware and we keep reminding him again and again that he has to be at IPK at 2.00 p.m. because I have told DSP Jude that we will be at IPK KL at 2.00 p.m. we did tell the officer recording at about 12.00 p.m. that we had to leave otherwise we will be late. And as a result, the officer recorded down what has been said about our meeting in IPK with DSP Jude. And we left at about 12.00 p.m.

Q:    You left for where?
A:    We was supposed to drop Datuk Param and naik satu kereta ke IPK. But the time we reached Selangor Club in Kiara…

Q:    What was the purpose at Selangor Club?
A:    Datuk Param’s car was there so we have to drop him there and it was nearly 12.35 p.m. at that time. Since there was so much time left DSAI suggested that he wants to pray and freshen up before we proceed to IPK and Kiara is near to DSAI’s house so we went to his house.

Q:    What happened on the way?
A:    By the time we passed Garden School at merely 12.30 or 12.40, DSP Jude asking me “Where are you?” and I said “Look, we are still early. We are going back to DSAI’s house, and he’ll pray and freshen up and I’ll asure you I’ll be bring him at 2.00 sharp”.

Q:    Where?
A:    To the IPK.

Q:    Anything happened on the way to DSAI’s house in Segambut?
A:    In about 10 minutes thereafter as we proceeded to DSAI’s house mengikut Jalan Segambut Dalam, we have to get to DSAI’s house through a slip road and as we entered the slipped road, we were ambushed by several police cars. And I particularly remember a green unmarked wheeler [] and there were about 10 or so balaclava clad and platoon commanders and they all having armed and very menacing surrounded DSAI’s vehicle.

Q:    After that what happened?
A:    I told DSAI to remain in the car because the situation is rather menacing since I don’t expect machine gun to arrest one man and then plus too many cars. We were quite alarmed. In fact, DSAI was quite alarmed, threaten and fearful of himself. We just sat for a while and I told DSAI [], don’t come out and I will talk to the officer. When I opened the door, an officer I think Supt Taufik if I can recall, he is Superintendent because he is in uniform.

Q:    Is he here? If I call him will you be able to identify him?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Supt. Jude also, can you identify?
A:    Yes.

Supt. Taufik and Supt. Jude identified.

Q:    Carry on.
A:    This things is in our mind because the last time we told the police that we will surrender DSAI in 1998 the last time when we told that we will surrender DSAI in 1998 without any problems if you ask us to bring him and thereafter we expected them to invite him to the police station, they stormed the house.  So, that fear operated in all of us, me and DSAI that it is happening again.

And I told him not to come out of the car and I talked to the officer Taufik and I asked him “What is it that you want? We are supposed to be there at 2.00 p.m. and I’ve just spoken to DSP Jude.” And he said “My order are to arrest DSAI and take him to IPK” and I asked him “What is the charge? Why do you have to arrest him?” and he said “My orders are to arrest and bring him to IPK”.

I asked him “Why don’t we go in DSAI’s car? You can escort us and you don’t have a reason for him to be arrested by you”  and he said “No. My orders are strict and  I am to arrest him and take him into my vehicle”.  [] and I said “Alright, I have to talk to client”. I then walked to DSAI’s car and opened the door and asked him to come out and told him “Looks like you have to go. They are very strict about this”.

Thereafter I escorted him to the four wheeler vehicle and I asked Supt Taufik “Can I follow? At least let the lawyer be with him” as a fact they are taking him now and to that he said “No. there is no space in the vehicle. There are two escorts and DSAI will be there, so there is no space and you have to come on your own”. So then we followed the vehicle thereafter as soon as DSAI were driven away.

Q:    Right off to IPK?
A:    Yes, we went to IPK

Q:    What happened at the IPK? []
A:    As soon we were there, at 7th floor, we were ushered to a meeting room. And there, if I recall there is ACP Razali, DSP Jude and I can’t recall the others who were there together with DSAI and ACP Razali then said to me “Look Mr. Nair, we are not going to detain your client. We just want to take his statement. And after the statement, he may leave”. Soon, the other lawyers just arrived and Datin Seri also arrived and on that assurance we left one lawyers aside and we left the office and waited down stairs.

Q:    So, that was your on that day ?
A:    Yes.

Q:    From the time DSAI was apprehended, stopped [], did Supt Taufik gives any grounds of arrest to DSAI at any time?
A:    Absolutely no, YA. He was rather robotic and says “My instruction is to bring DSAI to IPK”. That’s it.

Q:    Was DSAI given grounds of arrest at any time at the IPK by anybody?
A:    Not in my presence at all.

KS:    That will be all, YA.

Cross-examination by MY

Q:    Would you agree with me that Supt Taufik didn’t talk much?
A:    As I said he is robotic and all he said is “My order is to arrest DSAI”.

Q:    Yes or no?
A:    Yes.

Q:    You asked him why was he there.
A:    Yes.

Q:    And would I be correct to say that he said “I have an order to arrest DSAI pursuant to this offence”?
A:    He said “I’m here to arrest”. That’s all.

Q:    My instruction is you were told the reason of arrest.
A:    No, he did not tell me the reason for the arrest.

Q:    There’s one statement you made towards the end, with the assurance that he will be released that night.
A:    Yes.

Q:    I just want to ask this question, if there is no assurance what will happen?
A:    If there is no assurance  obviously we will then as lawyers will apply perhaps for habeas corpus.

Q:    On what ground?
A:    On the basis that the arrest was illegal.

Q:    Why?
A:    He has agreed to give statement to the police and there is no reason to arrest. Under S.111 CPC, you don’t arrest the person if you can’t go and apply for a summons before a Magistrate to have him comply it to come to the police station. You don’t arrest a person for that.

Q:    Would you agree that S.111 CPC apply to witnesses and not suspect?
A:    At that time we don’t know they were [] him as what.

Q:    Would you agree that DSAI was a suspect?
A:    At that time? We don’t know at that time.

Q:    Are you aware of all the reports made against DSAI?
A:    Of course I’m aware.

Q:    So?
A:    He can be a witness. He can be anybody. That’s why we did not know at that time what you have decided to treat him as.

Q:    In fact the report was published in the newspapers. The whole of Malaysia, if not the whole of the world know there was a report alleging sodomy. Were you aware of that?
A:    Yes.

Q:    Didn’t that make him a suspect?
A:    That’s for you to decide. I’m a lawyer.

Q:    Yes, because you are a lawyer I ask you.
A:    He can be anybody. Anybody that you want him to be.

Q:    Allegation is made against you, didn’t that make him a suspect?
A:    I am a lawyer. I am not a prosecutor or the police to decide that.

MY:    YA, may I ask this question?

Q:    You were a police officer before?
A:    Of course.

Q:    You are a SB (Special Branch) and you were in commercial crime?
A:    Yes.

Q:    When did you call a person a suspect?
A:    When I want to take his statement.

Q:    []. There are many people whose statement are recorded and yet no report is not against them and that doesn’t make them a suspect.
A:    Not necessarily.

Q:    So, when their statements are recorded, they are a suspect? That’s what you said.
A:    You can be. You can also be arrested.

Q:    So now, in this particular instance you knew that DSAI’s statement was about to be recorded and it makes him by your answer, a suspect.
A:    There is no legal definition of a suspect.

Q:    I mean, it is by your definition.
A:    [] either a witness or an accused. [] of suspect. Can you tell me in the CPC the definition of a suspect?

Q:    I took it by your definition.
A:    You say suspect, I don’t say suspect.

MY:    YA…
KS:    Leave it for submission.
YA:    Yeah, this is about the law.
MY:    Okay []
YA:    We want facts only, not law.
MY:     Yes, YA. That’s why sometimes I always wonder whether or not the counsel should be allowed to ask all about the law. But anyway..

Q:    You speak to Jude on 14.07.2008?
A:    Yes. He called a few times.

Q:    What did you talked to him about?
A:    There are few conversations between me and him so I don’t know which one are you referring to.

Q:    On the 14th.
A:    All I know is on the 13th we told him “You have served S.111 and you didn’t serve it on him personally therefore my client is not obliged to come”.

Q:    Was that the only conversation?
A:    I believe he was asking to fix appointment again.

Q:    During that day how many conversations you have I wouldn’t know. But you know that DSAI is required to come to IPK on 16.07.2008?
A:    No. That was an agreement he made. []

Q:    My suggestion is on 16th July there was no communication at all between you and DSP Jude?
A:    Absolutely.

MY:    That would be all.

Re-examination by KS.

Q:    Were you an experienced or at least police officer?
A:    Yes.

Q:    When did you join the police force?
A:    I joined in 1982.

Q:    As what?
A:    I was a Cadet ASP.

Q:    You were in the force for how long?
A:    About 8-9 years.

Q:    And you have experience of crime investigation?
A:    Yes. [] in other branches.

Q:    In this case were you aware that S.111 order was issued?
A:    I was aware when the family called me on Sunday saying that S.111 order was given to the guard at the guard house.

Q:    S.111 are addressed to?
A:    The name was DSAI on the [].

Q:    What is the S.111 order?
A:    It is an order to appear before a police officer at the police station or in a police station.

Q:    As a witness under S.112?
A:    As a witness under S.112. That’s true.

KS:    That would be all, YA.
MY:     I only have one question through the court.
YA:     Apa dia?

Q:     With regard to S.111, is it true that you don’t recognized that as being served on your client?
A:    As I understand the law, S.111 must be served personally on the person required…

Q:    And you don’t recognize it?
A:    As lawyers, we don’t recognize that.

MY:    That’s all.
KS:     Just one question.

Q:     It was in fact issued?
A:    Yes, it was issued. Definitely.

Q:    It was a S.111 order?
A:    Yes. S.111 order. It was issued.

KS:     That would be all.
YA:     You can now go out.
KS:     We will be calling Mr. Sivarasa. He will be here tomorrow morning.
YA:     He is not here now?
KS:    He is not here.
MY:     I though I don’t want to call rebuttal witness but in view of what he said I have two rebuttal witness, with only one question each.
KS:     We must close our case first.
YA:    Yeah. And later baru rebuttal boleh call.
KS:    You can’t jump the gun.
MY:     Most of the thing said we accept.
KS:     This is a criminal trial, YA. We must placed before this court all the materials, YA.
YA:     Start tomorrow with Sivarasa. You got two rebuttal?
MY:     Two rebuttal witnesses, Taufik. I want to ask whether or not he informed. That’s all. []
YA:     Okay. But it has to be after Sivarasa.
MY:    Yes.
YA:    So boleh habis lah esok?
KS:     We’ll try our best.
YA:     Continue tomorrow at 9.00 a.m.
[3.52 p.m.] Adjourned.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 2 Mac 2011 March 4, 2011

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

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 2 Mac 2011
Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

PP : Semua hadir
PB : KS, SN, (Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dato’CV Prabhakaran,Ram Karpal, Marissa, Radzlan tidak hadir)
AI hadir

[2.55 p.m.]
Kes disambung semula dengan permohonan pihak pembelaan untuk meminta trial within a trial supaya diadakan di atas bidang kuasa mahkamah.

KS: My Lord, I have to start first?
YA: Yes.
KS: My Lord, it is our submission, that we need a trial within a trial, for the purpose of laying the ground to show that what has been recovered from the lock up which has been marked as an ID, that those items ought to be excluded as evidence. For doing that, there must be a basis for it. At this stage, I would just perhaps go on bits and pieces of what basis would that be, because at this stage, we need to decide whether there should be a trial within a trial in any event. Our submission would be the arrest of DSAI was illegal, unlawful and what has compounded that rather unlawful means, unlawful methods employed by the police for the purpose of getting those items for DNA analysis. I take you to the case of PP v Mohd Farid bin Mohd Sukis, tab 1 of our bundle. But before that, I will take Your Lordship to the case of Goi Ching Ang v PP [1999] 1 MLJ 507, tab 2. That case is ML Federal Court’s decision of 5 men bench. I take you to para 3 under held, page 508. [read]. That was section 27. Here likewise, the principle would apply.I take you to several pages of that case, page 526 of that report. I take you first to the case of Noor Mohamed v The King [1949]. [read page 526, tab 2].
[Read] under heading of Principle of Fairness, page 526 and 527]I take you to the aspect of fair trial, in the case of Lee Kwan Woh v PP [2009] 5 MLJ 301, tab 7. [Read 303, para 2]Next, to the case of Ramli bin Kechik v PP [1986] 2 MLJ 33, tab 3 in our bundle.[Read page 38] I take your Lordship now to the case of R v Sang [1980] A.C 402,that would be tab 4 [read para H, page 402]. Next, Australian case, Cleland v the Queen [1982] 151 C.L.R. 1, tab 5, [read para 2, page 1] Then we go to the case of Regina v Fox [1985] 1 W.L.R.1126, tab 6 [read para H, page 1126, and para A&B, page 1127]. Next, case of PP v Farid bin Mohd Sukis [2002] 3 MLJ 401 again, [read on the head note page 402], elaboration come in the judgment of Augustine Paul at page 412, 413, 414, 415 read].
So by applying those principles, YA, we say that it is necessary for us for your Lordship to exercise the discretion. That can only be done, if we are given opportunity. That opportunity can only be made available substantively and objectively where there is a trial within a trial. On the final say, we’ll be relying on DSAI’s arrest and detention was unlawful. The method employed to secure the evidence which is now being placed before the court was brought in circumstances of unlawful means, and unfair method. Therefore, we submit that there should be a trial within a trial. We pray that YA to follow the case of Mohd Farid where the learned judge has addressed practically within the authorities of English case and []. We pray that we will be given opportunities to place that material before the Lordship. That would be all for the moment.
MY: ML, to instruction of evidence in a criminal trial, is to govern by Evidence Act, especially Section 5 and Section136. Section 5 talks about we may only adduce evidence with regards to the existence of non existence of fact in issue, anything that this act declares to be relevant. And Section 136 says that the party adduces to the evidence, than the court will ask in what manner it is relevant. If it can shows that it is relevant, then it is admissible.
Obviously, the evidence pertaining to the collection of exhibits from the lock up is relevant in sense that it has very great probative value. It affords evidence, it affords proof of the guilt of the accused. But of course, in the evidence act, there are certain section which say that before the evidence is admissible, there are 3 conditions: First, Section 24: confession where there is objection to that evidence, the prosecution has to show that the confession had been obtained not from the inducement, threat or promise using by the person in authority. That is the only time when the court will hold a trial within a trial. Where there are no pre conditions to the admissibility, a trial within a trial is not necessary. My Learned friend refers to few cases, from Noor Mohamed is not with regard to a trial within a trial, they also refers to Farid Sukis, and also Goi Ching Ang. If I may just say something about Goi Ching Ang. Goi Ching Ang is one Federal Court’s decision which I think that the case which had been decided wrongly. In the judgment, the court agrees that involuntariness is not an issue, because sec 34 and Sec 27 [] then how could would say that it is involuntary and then exclude it? Because in the Privy Council in Lam Chi-Ming, page 24, tab 1, [read] says that if it is not voluntary, then it is not admissible. But in the same case, the Privy Council recognizes the fact that though section 27, is found in Ceylon and India, it’s principle and laws were actually lain down in English courts earlier, and then codified by India and Ceylon, and found its way in our relevant act, the things have change. In Lam Chi Ming itself, this is what the court has to say. If I may, [read], para g, page 175. And then at page 178, para c [read].
Section 27 says that voluntariness is not an issue. And how anybody could says that it is proper to obtain it, because it was not recognized. What is being admitted is not the confession. What is admitted is the information leading to the discovery. It shows knowledge only; it does not directly incriminate the accused. So, in Goi Ching Ang, reference was made to Noor Mohamed. Noor Mohamed is the case of similar fact evidence. When you talk about similar fact evidence, obviously it is evidence which does not prove or disprove. That’s why the court is very careful. Even then Noor Mohamed says even though it is a bad character evidence but sometimes because of special features in the evidence, it may need [] accused probable to admit it. So Noor Mohamed is not the case to be applied in this situation, but YA, at this juncture, we are not talking about whether or not we want to exclude, we are talking about whether or not there is a need for a trial within a trial.

YA: But I think what they are saying is that falls under the third one, i.e. the evidence obtained from the accused after the commission of the offence. I think that is what they are saying, not confession and admission.
MY: In PP v Mohd Farid bin Mohd Sukis & Anor [2002] 3 MLJ 401, the court recognised that it is not confession. At page 412, it says that normally a trial within a trial is held to determine the admissibility of evidence which requires certain conditions to be proved before it can be admitted. Thus, in the case of confession, the precondition of its voluntariness and a trial within a trial must be held to determine whether it was voluntarily made before it can be admitted. Where evidence sought to be admitted is not subject to any such conditions as in our case, it must be admitted without subjecting it to a trial within a trial. This is what it says. And then the later part it says we have to []. You must admit first. Now, application has been made to exclude, then the court [] whether or not there in the course of obtaining the information, it is so oppressive to tender it, unfair and inadmissible. But []. This is what PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis said. Now subjecting it…
YA: If I understand you correctly, mark as P first then we have a trial within a trial and if the court decides that it is opression, take it out. Is that what you mean?
MY: No. When it comes to exclusion, all the authority says this: just because the evidence is obtained illegally or improperly it does not follow that the evidences to be excluded. It will only be excluded if it is unfair to the accused, where the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value. Again, we go back to what [] and Nur Muhammad said. If it merely shows that this man is a man of this character rather than the evidence that will [] by guilt, the you would exclude it. In this case the evidence that is sought to be adduced confirms the guilt of the accused. In that sense all the cases were saying that this kind of evidence had a strong probative value and you must admit because its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. It is not something that is []. So YA, even in PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis, the court recognises that since this kind of evidence does not fall under the category of S.24 Evidence Act which is confession or admission, then you admit it as []. Now, learned judge refers to this cases in para F and G of page 412 of the report where it says that [read: it follows that..] it refers to Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1, with respect of the judge it involves the evidence of confession. Confession, we agree must have a trial within a trial. The High Court of England in Cleland v R is deciding on the volantariness of the confession. So, if that is, it applied [].
In para F and G of page 412 [read: it follows that the party seeking the exclusion of this evidence must satisfy the court that the circumstances are such that the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the party making the application. The appropriate way of dealing with it by way of a trial within a trial.]. It seems that all these cases referred to confession. In [], at para H and I, it says [read: if the voir dire procedure is not adopted, a defendant is placed at a disadvantage because the impugned statement will not be excluded unless evidence arising during the prosecution case warrants that action. When a voir dire is not conducted, an accused is placed in a situation where he or she can only give evidence during the substantive trial…the result obviously places an accused at a serious disadvantage]. Here it talks about jury trial. In jury trial, the admissibility of a particular evidence when challenged, it is always decided in the absent of the jury. If it is not a jury trial, I don’t see why you need to have a trial within a trial.At page 413, para B, this is what the judge says [read: the holding of a trial within a trial for the purpose under discussion will ensure that all relevant matters to facilitate the making of a ruling are addressed. If such a course is not followed, material evidence may be overlooked as the issue will not be in focus. This will place the defence at a disadvantage. Needless to say, the evidence in dispute can be excluded based even on material available in the substantive trial itself on the issue].
YA: Yalah, kalau boleh di exclude boleh la exclude. Tapi kalau tak boleh lagi which we need to go further, there where the trial within a trial comes in.
MY: Yes. The judge repeated this…
YA: Ya, itu siapa ya? Augustine Paul?
MY: Yes, when he is a High Court judge. And he repeated this in [] when he was in the Federal Court. He repeated it, the same passage. First of all, he is relying on the judgement dealing with confession which he himself said that you must have a trial within a trial. And in this case, we are not dealing with confession. We are in predicament now. Apparently he applied the wrong principle to the wrong case.
KS: I wish not to interrupt. But what my learned friend is not quoting what is in here but in the judgment of PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis.
YA: Never mind.
KS: We have to put him on the right track. It is substantive trial or [] although…
YA: We know that. We have read that case many times.
MY: Then we look what is the position in India. Of course in India, there is no mention about trial within a trial with regard to evidence of the []. [] they talk about objection, then they talk about exclusion and they talk about R v Sang, Kuruma v The Queen and Nur Muhammad. No mention about trial within a trial. That is maybe why J Augustine Paul made no reference to any Indian cases in his judgment. Our Evidence Act 1950 is in pari materia of India. They didn’t talk about trial within a trial.
Now, let’s see at the position in England. Tab 29 of our bundle, Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2007. If I may read “Procedure” in page 1666. This is the case where exclusion is sought under S.78 and S.78 is more or less with R v Sang. If I may first refer your Lordship to page 1664 where S.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is reproduced. If I may read [read: in any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit]. Under “Procedure” in page 1666, it says [read para 15-458]. But this are materials before the court. [continue reading]. Here reference was made to R v Manji, but the case involves confession. And then we talk about summary trial. [read para 15-460, page 1667]. So, when we abolished the jury trial, what is the difference between summary trial in a lower court and the higher court? None. There is no jury whose mind will be influenced before the court can decides on the admissibility. Because here, your Lordship is both the judge and the jury. So, the question of somebody’s mind is being influenced does not arise.
I refer your Lordship to Blackstone’s Criminal Practice tab 27, page 2153, under the subheading “Procedure” [read – in seems reasonable to suppose…]. Now, they are referring to a situation where the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained is in dispute. Here, so far nobody is disputing how it is obtained when the thing was collected. Because first you must look at what are the conduct that you complained of. And then whether or not that conduct amounts to illegality or impropriety.
If I may read [continue reading – In Manji [1990] Crim LR 512, the accused denied…in general, the judge should decide on the basis of the dispositions, statements and submissions of counsel]. Again, no a trial within a trial.
I now invite your Lordship to the case of R v Sang [1980] AC 402, tab 8. This is in fact the case that lays down the principle of exclusion. At page 432. In this case, there is no a trial within a trial. [read first line para D]. In this case, it involves agent provocateur, whether or not the offence was committed as the result of the incitement of the agent provocateur. [read para E-F]. When you hear it, admit it, and then later on you may want to hear whether or not it should be excluded and then tell the prosecution you cannot rely on this evidence on the submission. [continue reading para F-G]. So, they are saying that when there is no distinction like in the summary trial or like in our trial, then there is no need to hear until the end and then decides if in fact Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was illegally arrested then hear submission whether or not that arrest is in fact illegal and improper and what is the effect, whether or not that has deprived Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim a fair trial.
It is our submission that if we were to go to by our Evidence Act and pari materia with India and Ceylon which is S.24, there is no trial within a trial. If you go by PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis, if any evidence sought to be admitted does not comes within S.24, you admit, and exclude later. And exclusion can be done either through a voir dire or not. If you go to England, it says that if you go under S.78..
YA: Just to clarify, you are saying that if we go by PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis, we admit dulu lepas tu buat a trial within a trial and then decides samaada dia proved atau tidak.
MY: So, exclusion can be done either by the evidence that is being adduced or a voir dire.
YA: That one if we go by PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis.
MY: Yes.
YA: That means the only dispute here from what I can see is now we are yet to mark, and you want to have the trial straight without marking the exhibits. That is the difference here now.
MY: Yes. But here in PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis which my learned friend is relying says you must admit first.
YA: Mark as P first, then have a trial within a trial and if the court finds that there is substance in what you are [] here then we exclude. Is that what you are saying?
MY: Yes. What PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis is saying is this, if the conduct complained of or the illegality can be seen from the evidence adduced, you decide by the evidence. If it is not in the evidence, then you have a voir dire.
In England it says evidence in [], [] the court has a discretion whether to hold a voir dire or not. But since where there is no real difference in summary trial where the position is the same now because of no jury trial but if you have to do so, you have to wait until the whole of the prosecution stage then you have a voir dire. In R v Sang, the reason why it is done that way YA, is to prevent prospected and lengthy trial within a trial. In R v Sang, the court goes on the assumption that the allegation is true that the offence was insight committed as a result of incitement by the agent provocateur to decide whether it is improper, if improper whether or not this triggers to the discretion of the court to exclude it in the sense that the use of it has been unfair to the accused. The use of it is unfair in the sense that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.
To sum up, for our purpose there shouldn’t be any trial within a trial until the prosecution adduce all its evidence. The exhibits that we attempted to tender through Aidora and Amidon should be admitted as a matter of course and at this juncture the court would later on decide whether or not in order to exclude if there is an objection, a voir dire is needed. And for that both the parties will submit whether or not the conduct complained of is in the evidence adduced during the prosecution case either through the chief or cross-examination. If it is not there then we should hold a voir dire. And this voir dire would have to be held before judgment. This is what the law says. I urge your Lordship to dismiss the application of voir dire at this juncture and to allow us to have the evidence admitted and the exhibits marked as P.
YA: And after that buat voir dire? Is that what you are saying?
MY: Yes. And at the end…
YA: Evidence pasal collection ni dah habis, kan? Pasal nak mark saja from ID to P.
MY: Because today only we were told that this impropriety is attached to the arrest, not yesterday. To the arrest and the detention. So, during cross-examination, nothing is mentioned about the detention to be unfair. I propose for us to wait until we finish because this evidence with regards to arrest may be adduced when the IO gives evidence on that. But if it is still insufficient for them to lay the foundation to say that this is the conduct and this is what we say or complained to be improper or illegal, then we will have a voir dire for them to say what is the conduct. Then, if we concede, we can submit whether or not the conduct is illegal. Because they have to show what is the conduct. If we concede, the court just like in R v Sang will hear submission whether or not that is improper and whether or not it should be excluded.

KS: We would like YA to follow the procedure of PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis. I take your Lordship to page 412…

YA: If we by PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis, as they pointed out we have to mark as P first and then have a trial within a trial.

KS: Whether it is marked as P first, there is no difference. There must be a trial within a trial for us to lay the basis to exclude it. And then we can only do a trial within a trial not in the general trial.

YA: You want to have a trial within a trial to exclude exhibits which has already be marked as exhibits. As they pointed out, the exhibits have not been marked as exhibits, so how are we going to exclude?
KS: It does not matter, my Lord.
YA: So you concede it can be marked?
KS: Yes, it can be marked. And we’ll go on with a trial within a trial. []. We must lay the basis, YA. We must do that in a trial within a trial. It is in no other way comes in the general trial. I take your Lordship ro page 412 of PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis. [read para G, page 412]. That is what it is saying here, that it is the more appropriate matter. In R v Sang, the complaint was this, an agent provocateur and that evidence came in the general trial. [].
YA: If I understand them correctly, if we want to have a trial within a trial why not wait until evidence on arrest and if it is not enough, then we have a voir dire. That is what they are saying.
MY: If the basis is not found in the evidence being adduced, then have a voir dire.
YA: You have two chances. One chance is through the evidence. From there kalau dah ada basis untuk tunjuk arrest tak betul, satu chance. Kalau tak ada, hold a trial within a trial. So, second chance for you. That’s what they are proposing.
MY: That’s what the law says.
KS: I think this is the position that it should be held now before the evidence goes in. And even if it is P [], it ought to be expunged. It comes back to square one.
MY: We admit first…PP v Mohd Farid b. Mohd Sukis says that you must admit first, then hold a trial within a trial.
KS: No. It says a trial within a trial first, then general trial. I take your Lordship to page 413 of Farid. [read]. It has to be done this way. No other way. [] We pray that a trial within a trial be directed at this stage.
YA: That’s all? Tangguh sekejap.
[4.00 p.m.]

[4.14 p.m.]
YA: This is the ruling of the court. Generally the court is not concerned with how an admissible evidence is obtained. But in cases where the evidence intended to be tendered involved admission, confession or generally with regards to evidence obtained from the accused after the commission of an offence, the court has discretion to exclude relevant admissible evidence if the evidence was obtained by improper or unfair means.
And it is my humble view that the proper way to determine whether there was unfair mean in obtaining such evidence that warrant exercising those discretion is by way a trial within a trial. Therefore, I allow the defence application to commence a trial within a trial.
[4.15 p.m.]

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II – The Recorded Truth – 1 Mac 2011 March 3, 2011

Posted by malaysianstory in 1Malaysia.
add a comment

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

PP    : Semua hadir
PB    : KS, SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dato’ CV Prabhakaran (Ram Karpal,  Marissa Fernando, Radzlan

tidak hadir)
WB    : Zamri Idrus (for Complainant)
AI hadir.

[8.55 a.m.] Pihak-pihak masuk ke dalam Kamar Hakim.
[9.13 a.m.] Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.

[9.15 a.m.]
MY:     Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung bicara.

SP14-L/kpl Mohd Hazri bin Hassan, 39 tahun, Jurufoto Bahagian bantuan teknik Bahagian JSJ Bukit Aman
SP14 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Malaysia.

Examination-in-chief by NH

Q:    Sejak bila bertugas sebagai jurugambar?
A:    Sejak 25 Mac 2001

Q:    Pada 17.7.2008 adakah kamu bertugas?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Pada 17.7.2008, jam lebih kurang 11.40 pagi ada kamu menjalankan apa-apa tugas?
A:    Ada. Bertugas sebagai jurufoto di tingkat 7 di IPKKL.

Q:    Di bahagian mana di IPKKL kamu bertugas?
A:    Di lokap D9.

Q;    D9 bahagian jenayah berat siasatan khas?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Di lokap D9 IPKKL ini siapa beri arahan tugas untuk kamu?
A:    Supt. Amidon bin Anan

NH:     Mohon Supt Amidon dipanggil utk dicamkan

Q:    Adakah ini Supt Amidon?
A:    Ya.

Bekas Supt Amidon bin Anan dicamkan.

Q;    Di lokap D9 IPKKL ini apakah arahan yang diberikan oleh cik amidon kepada kamu?
A;    Untuk ambil gambar di lokap IPK KL D9.

Q;    Adakah kamu ada ambil gambar seperti diarahkan?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Kamu ingat berapa keeping gambar yang kamu ambil di situ?
A:    Sebanyak 14 keping.

Q;    Jika dirujuk gambar2 tersebut kamu boleh camkan?
A:    Boleh

NH:    Mohon rujuk 14 keping gambar.

Q:    Lihat satu persatu. Adakah ini gambar 14 keping yang kamu ambil di IPKKL tersebut?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Ada negative.
A:    Ya.

NH:    Mohon rujuk negative 14 keping gambar tersebut

Q;    Adakah ini negative bagi 14 keping gambar tersebut?
A:    Ya.

P78A-N utk 14 gambar
P78N(a)-(n) untuk negatif

Q:    Cuba rujuk P78 gambar 1. Boleh beritahu mahkamah ini gambar apa?
A:    Sebelah kanan lokap menghala ke dalam dari pandangan luar.

Q:    Sel lokap adalah yang di dalam itu? Yang ada tag 4 itu ke?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Awak Nampak tag 4 di gambar 1?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Masa awak ambil gambar itu adakah awak tahu apa gambar di tag 4 ini?
A:    Tidak tahu.

Q:    Adakah gambar2 ini diambil pada kedudukan asal ia ditemui?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Lihat gambar 2. Jika kita lihat tag 5,6 dan 7. Gambar tag 7 gambar apa?
A;    Botol air mineral.

Q;    Adakah gambar ini diambil pada kedudukan asal ia ditemui?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Rujuk gambar 3, gambar apa ini?
A;    Gambar dekat pintu masuk sel lokap.

Q;    Rujuk gambar 4, 5 dan 6. Kalau lihat ketiga-tiga gambar tahu apa yang gambar diambil kalau ikutkan anak panah di situ?
A:    Sehelai bulu.

Q;    Adakah ini gambar ini diambil dalam lokap?
A:    Dalam lokap.

Q;    Rujuk gambar 7 dan 8. Ada tunjuk anak panah hijau di situ. Ini menunjukkan apa?
A:    Sebatang berus gigi.

Q;    Adakah gambar2 ini diambil pada kedudukan asal ia ditemui?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Rujuk gambar 9. Anak panah ini menunjukkan apa?
A;    Menunjukkan sehelai tuala putih good morning.

Q;    Adakah ia diambil pada kedudukan asal ia ditemui?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Gambar 10, 11 dan 12 menunjukkan gambar apa di tag 7 di situ?
A;    Botol air mineral pandangan dekat.

Q;    Adakah ia diambil pada keduukan asal botol itu ditemui?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Seterusnya gambar 13 dan 14 menunjukkan apa?
A:    Barang2 kes yang telah dipack/diseal.

Q:    Semasa kamu mengambil gambar2 14 keping ini dan sepanjang dalam lokap D9 tersebut adakah kamu memakai sarung tangan?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Adakah kamu memakai pakaian khusus?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Siapa yang menyediakan pakaian  khusus tersebut?
A:    Supt. Amidon.

Q;    Sepanjang kamu berada di dalam lokap tersebut ada atau tidak kamu ada menyentuh atau memegang mana2 barang kes dalam lokap tersebut?
A:    Tidak.

KS:    No question.
NH:     Mohon saksi dilepaskan.
YA:     Kamu boleh turun.

SP15-Amidon bin Anan, 60 tahun, Pensyarah pelawat di UiTM dan UKM

Examination-in-chief by NH.

NH:    Yang Arif, saksi hendak berdiri utk beri keterangan
SP15: Saya minta izin Yang Arif

Q:    Kamu adalah pesara polis?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Bila kamu bersara dari pasukan PDRM?
A:    2008, bulan Ogos.

Q;    Bila kamu menganggotai PDRM?
A:    1976.

Q:    Apakah jawatan terakhir yang kamu sandang dalam PDRM?
A:    Jawatan terakhir sebelum saya bersara ialah Ketua Bhgn CSI Makmal Forensik PDRM, Bukit Aman Kuala Lumpur.

Q:    CSI ini ialah crime scene investigation?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Sejak bila kamu menjadi Ketua CSI di Bukit Aman ini?
A;    2005.

Q;    Sebelum kamu menjadi Ketua CSI di Bukit Aman ini, kamu bertugas di mana?
A:    Sebelum itu saya bertugas sebagai Ketua unit CSI ibupejabat polis kontinjen Selangor.

Q;    Sejak bila bertugas di unit CSI Selangor?
A:    Sejak 1994.

Q;    Boleh kamu maklumkan kepada mahkamah apakah sebarang latihan formal yang kamu telah lalui dari aspek csi, latihan-latihan dan kursus?
A:    Saya mempunyai masters dalam sains sukan dan dalam tempoh berkhidmat saya telah dihantar dari aspek siasatan di tempat kejadian kursus2 yang dianjurkan oleh FBI, pihak Australian Police  dan Scotland Yard London. Selain itu saya menghadiri kursus2 asas forensic sains yang dianjurkan oleh UPM dan Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.

Q:    Pernah kamu beri keterangan di mahkamah sebelum ini?
A:    Banyak kali.

Q:    Lebih kurang berapa kali?
A;    Setakat ini lebih kurang 900 setakat ini.

Q:    Pada 30 Jun 2008 adakah kamu bertugas?
A:    Ya. Ketika itu saya masih bertugas di makmal forensic PDRM Bukit Aman.

Q;    Dan pada tarikh tersebut adakah pasukan forensic yang kamu ketuai diminta utk bantu siasatan?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Siapa yang minta bantuan?
A:    Ketika itu DSP Jude.

Q:    Kamu kenal DSP Jude. Mohon dipanggil Supt. Jude utk pengecaman. Adakah ini DSP Jude?
A:    Ya.

Supt Jude dicamkan

Q;    Apakah bantuan yang diminta oleh DSP Jude ketika itu?
A:    Untuk menganalisa tempat kejadian.

Q:    Di mana tempat kejadian ini?
A:    (izin rujuk catatan saya). Di sebuah kondo di Damansara.

Q:    Di unit mana kondo tersebut?
A:    Di unit 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2.

Q;    Adakah kamu pergi ke unit-unit ini di kondo tersebut?
A:    Saya bersama pasukan saya menghala ke kondo tersebut.

Q;    Lebih kurang pukul berapa sampai di kondo tersebut?
A:    Kami bersama IO sampai di kondo tersebut  l/k jam 12.20 tengah hari.

Q;    Adakah kamu ada membuat pemeriksaan di unit-unit tersebut?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Ada apa2 ambil apa2 barang di kondo 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2?
A;    Ada.

Q:     Ada kamu buat pemeriksaan di unit 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2 di kondo tersebut?
A:    Kami kemudiannya ada menjalankan pemeriksaan di kedua-dua unit kondo tersebut.

Q;    Seterusnya adakah kamu ambil apa-apa barang di kedua-dua unit tersebut?
A:     Ada.

Q:    Boleh beritahu mahkamah apakah barang-barang yang kamu ambil di kedua-dua unit kondo ini?
A:    [mohon rujuk catatan]. Dari unit 11-5-1 saya rampas sehelai bulu yang ditandakan sebagai nombor 1.

Q:    Bulu ini ditemui di bahagian mana unit kondo tersebut?
A:    Bulu ini ditemui di bilik hujung sekali di unit 11-5-1.

Q;    Selain dari bulu apa lagi barang yang diambil?
A;    Sehelai bulu sahaja yang dirampas.

Q;    Selain itu?
A;    Kami jalankan pemeriksaan di 11-5-2. Di unit tersebut kami merampas satu carpet Chinese silk yang ditandakan sebagai eksibit no.2 dan seterusnya satu blanket duvet atas nama Pasaya yang ditandakan sebagai eksibit no.3.

Q;    Apakah tujuan barang2 ini diambil?
A:    Untuk melakukan dna profiling seterusnya.

Q:    Seterusnya barang-baang yang kamu ambil di kedua-dua unit ini adakah dimasukkan dalam envelope atau dibungkus?
A:    Kesemua eksibit seperti bulu dimasukkan ke dalam envelope manakala carpet dan duvet dibungkus dengan kertas brown paper.

Q:    Setelah kamu buat pembungkusan adakah barang-barang tersebut disealkan?
A:    Semua barang2 diseal sebelum diserahkan kepada IO.

Q;    Barang-barang ini kamu serah pada IO di mana?
A:    Semasa di tempat kejadian.

Q;    Siapa IO yang kamu maksudkan?
A;    Saya serahkan kepada DSP Jude.

Q;    Semasa penyerahan barang kes adakah kamu tandatangan borang serah menyerah barang kes?
A:    Ada.

Q;    Ada tandatangan pada borang tersebut?
A;    Ada.

NH:    Pohon saksi dirujuk dengan borang serah menyerah bertarikh 30.6.2008.

Q:    Sila lihat adakah ini borang serah menyerah yang ada tandatangan kamu?
A:    Ya. Saya tandatangan di muka surat 2 di sebelah kiri.

Q;    Ada DSP Jude tandatangan?
A:    Ada. Di sebelah kanan muka surat 2.

NH:    Mohon ditandakan.

P79 – Borang serah menyerah bertarikh 30.6.2008.

Q;    Rujuk saksi eksibit P43A.  Adakah ini envelope di mana kamu masukkan sehelai bulu yang kamu ambil ke dalamnya?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Lihat dalam sampul P43A, iaitu P43C, cuba lihat dalam sampul ini ada atau tidak bulu yang kamu katakana?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Ada apa-apa penandaan pada kertas putih yang bulu ditampal di atasnya?
A;    Saya ada turunkan tandatangan saya di atas kertas putih A4.

Q:    Mohon saksi dirujuk eksibit P49 satu bungkusan yang mengandungi eksibit P49A. Adakah ini bungkusan yang kamu buat tandaan nombor 2 dan seal dari forensic?
A:    Nombor 2 adalah tulisan yang saya buat dan seal PDRM forensic.

Q;    Adakah ini carpet yang kamu ambil dari unit 11-5-2?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Pohon saksi merujuk bungkusan P50 yang mengandungi P50A. Adakah ini bungkusan yang kamu buat penandaan dan mempunyai seal forensic PDRM?
A:    Saya sendiri tulis nombor 3 manakala belakang bungkusan saya tulis for ‘dna profiling for victim-suspect’. Ia adalah satu duvet yang saya rampas di unit tersebut.

Q;    Semasa pasukan kamu dan kamu buat pemeriksaan di unit 11-5-1 dan 11-5-2 adakah kamu dan anggota kamu memakai sarung tangan?
A;    Sebelum kami memasuki siasatan forensic kami memakai overall, bersarung kaki dan bersarung tangan.

Q:    Tujuan sarung tangan dipakai?
A;    Adalah amalan forensic utk tidak memindah atau transfer traces of evidence kepada barang2 kes.

Q;    Seterusnya pada 17.7.2008 adakah kamu masih bertugas pada ketika itu?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Pada tarikh tersebut 17.7.2008 l/k 11.40 pagi adakah kamu dan pasukan kamu ada jalankan apa-apa tugas?
A:    Ya. Kami diarahkan ke IPKKL.

Q;    Di bahagian mana IPKKL?
A;    Kami menghala ke pejabat D9 IPKKL.

Q;    Apakah tujuan kamu ke situ?
A;    Saya telah ditaklimatkan utk membuat rampasan barang2/eksibit yang ada dalam lokap di D9.

Q;    Siapa beri arahan?
A;    OCCI Dato’ Khoo Chi Wah.

Q;    Apa tujuan pasukan pasukan forensic PDRM pergi ke sana utk dapatkan barang-barang kes?
A:    Barang-barang rampasan spt mana ditaklimatkan oleh dato khoo adalah utk dna profiling.

Q:    Secara spesifik di ipkkl ke mana tujuan kamu atau di bahagian mana kamu tuju?
A;    Di lokap D9 IPKKL.

Q;    Semasa kamu ke lokap di IPKKL kamu ingat ada berapa sel lokap?
A:    Saya masih ingat ada satu lokap dan di dlm lokap tersebut hanya ada satu sel sahaja.

Q:    Semasa kamu tiba di lokap D9 tersebut adakah sel ini berkunci?
A:    Semasa saya sampai, lokap tersebut dikawal oleh 2 anggota dan dalam keadaan berkunci.

Q;    Siapa yang buka kunci sel lokap tersebut?
A:    [rujuk catatan].Lokap dibuka oleh Konst Adnan bin Safril.

Q;    Mohon panggil Konstable Adnan bin Sabri. Adakah ini konst Adnan bin Safril yang buka lokap?
A:    Ya.

Konst Adnan bin Safril dicamkan.

Q;    Seterusnya adakah kamu dan anggota kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap tersebut?
A:    Kami masuk ke dalam lokap dan kemudian ke dalam sel.

Q;    Semasa kamu hendak masuk ke dalam sel adakah pintu sel lokap telah dibuka?
A:    Lock tapi tidak bermangga.

Q;    Siapa lagi anggota kamu yang masuk bersama-sama kamu ke dalam sel lokap?
A:    Pada peringkat awal saya seorang sahaja.

Q;    Selepas itu?
A;    Selepas itu bila jalankan proses pembungkusan pada peringkat akhir barulah anggota2 saya masuk ke dalam sel lokap.

Q;    Boleh beritahu anggota yang masuk ke dlaam lokap?
A;    Yang saya ingata C/Insp nizam , C/Insp aizam, woman inspector Ayuni dan Kpl Mat Dani.

Q;    Mohon dipanggil C/Insp Mohd  Nizam bin Husain, C/Insp Aizam, Sgt Mohd bin Mohd Dani, Insp. Nurayuni Dayana. Adakah ini anggota-anggota kamu yg membantu kamu di tempat tersebut?
A:    Ya.

C/Insp Mohd  Nizam bin Husain, C/Insp Aizam, Sgt Mohd bin Mohd Dani, Insp. Nurayuni Dayana.

Q;    Semasa kamu kata kamu masuk seorang dalam lokap apa barang2 yang kamu lihat dalam sel lokap tersebut?
A;    Selepas buat pemerhatian, siasatan awal saya menjumpai sehelai rambut dan seterusnya saya tagkan sebagai nombor 4 dan dapati satu berus gigi di atas lantai yang mana kemudiannya saya tagkan sbg nombor 5. Seterusnya sehelai towel good morning juga atas lantai yang kemudiannya saya tagkan sbg nombor 6 dan akhir sekali satu botol minuman mineral atas nama cactus’ yang saya nomborkan 7.

Q;    Adakah tag 4,5,6 dan 7 diletakkan di tempat asal barang-barang ditemui?
A:    Ketika itu saya tidak ubah.

Q;    Adakah kamu arahakan sesiapa untuk ambil gambar barang-barang yang kamu tagkan?
A:    Saya panggil jurugambar dalam pasukan saya untuk ambil gambar-gambar tersebut di dalam sel tersebut

Q;    Siapa jurugambar tersebut?
A;    L/kpl Hazri.

Q;    Yang mengecam kamu tadi?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Mohon saksi dirujuk gambar2 P78(a)-(n). Cuba lihat gambar 1 sehingga 12. Lihat satu persatu.
A:    Ya, ini gambar-gambar barang kes yang dirampas dalam sel lokap tersebut.

Q;    Adakah tag-tag itu diletakkan di tempat asal barang-barang ditemui?
A:    Ya. Ini kedudukan sebenarnya semasa saya masuk ke dalam sel.

Q;    Cuba rujuk gambar 4, 5 dan 6. Beritahu mahkamah anak panah pada tag4 ini menunjukkan apa?
A:    Sehelai rambut yang dijumpai atas lantai sel tersebut. Manakala gambar 5 dan 6 zoom-in kepada eksibit2 yang ditanda sebagai tag 4.

Q;    Rujuk 7dan 8 anak panah hijau pada tag 5 ini menunjukkan apa?
A:    Gambar 7, n4 kedudukan berus gigi yang dirampas dan gambar 8 zoom-in kepada berus gigi.

Q;    Seterusnya rujuk gambar 9.
A;    Barang kes bertanda tag 6 dan gambar zoom-in gambar good morning towel.

Q;    Seterusnya rujuk gambar 10,11 dan 12 tag 7 menunjukkan barang apa?
A;    Gambar 10 menunjukkan kedudukan gambar mineral bottle cactus secara  overview dan gambar 10 dan 11 dan 12 adalah gambar zoom in barang tersebut.

Q;    Setelah kamu ambil gambar dan letak tag, ada buat apa-apa penandaan kamu sendiri pada tuala good morning?
A:    Saya masih ingat saya ada tandatangan di hujung towel menggunakan ball point.

Q;    Bagaimana pula dengan botol mineral cap cactus ini?
A;    Saya gunakan marker dan tandatangan di bontot botol.

Q;    Bagaimana dengan berus gigi?
A;    Kemungkinan saya ada buat tandatangan di batang berus gigi.

Q:     Seterusnya, setelah buat penandaan, bagaimana kamu masukkan barang-barang tersebut ke dalam envelope untuk diseal?
A;    Selepas proses penandaan saya arahkan woman Inspector Ayuni utk sediakan penandaan barang2 kes tersbeut. Dia catat di bahagian luar envelope tersebut. Selepas dia sediakan,dia serahkan kepada saya dan saya letak kesemua eksibit ke dalam envelope-envelope yang disediakan oleh woman Inspector Ayuni.

Q;    Envelope-envelope yang diserahkan kepada kamu tulisan di hadapan envelope itu tulisan siapa?
A;    Woman Inspector Ayuni.

Q;    Boleh terangkan apa barang yang kamu masuk dalam enevelope dan penandaan-penandaannya pada envelope-envelope tersebut?
A:    Pada eksibit no.4 sehelai rambut, spt mana dalam proses sebelum ini di kondo dimasukkan dalam envelope saya seal sendiri dengan seal evidence dan saya tandatangan di belakang envelope tersebut.

Q;    Ada letak apa-apa nombor?
A;    Ada, nombor 4.

Q;    Siapa buat nombor 4?
A:    Disediakan oleh woman Inspector Ayuni.

Q;    Seterusnya?
A;    Berus gigi juga diletakkan ke dalam envelope dan saya seal sekali lagi dengan seal evidence dan kemudian saya tandatangan.

Q;    Envelope ini ditandakan dengan nombor berapa?
A;    Ditandakan sebagai eksibit no.5.

Q;    Seterusnya?
A;    Barang kes nombor 6 ialah good morning towel selepas diisi dalam envelope oleh Insp Ayuni  yang saya tandakan sebagai nombor 6,saya tandatangan dan seal.

Q;    Akhirnya?
A;    Envelope no.7 saya isikan botol mineral cactus, dan saya sekali lagi seal evidence dan tandatangan di belakang envelope.

Q;    Envelope ini nombor berapa?
A;    Nombor 7.

Q;    Bahagian mana lokap tersebut kamu seal kan  barang-barang?
A;    Dalam sel tersebut oleh saya sendiri.

Q;    Setelah kamu masukkan barang-barang kes ke dalam envelope dan diseal ada arah sesiapa untuk ambil gambar?
A;    Selepas semua pembungkusan dilakukan dan sebelum serah kpd IO saya arahkan jurugambar Hazri utk mengambil gambar eksibit tersebut.

Q;    Rujuk gambar 13 dan 14 P78.
A:    Ini gambar2 barang2 kes yang dibungkus.

Q;    Lebih kurang jam berapa kamu selesai tugas kamu di lokap D9 tersebut?
A:    Lebih kurang pukul 2.20 petang.

Q:    Seterusnya keempat-empat barang kes yang kamu tandakan dan seal kamu serahkan kepada siapa?
A;    Kemudian saya serahkan kepada dsp jude di pejabat D9 IPKKL.

Q:    Semasa kamu buat serah menyerah di IPKKL ada buat borang serah-menyerah?
A:    Ada.

Q;    Mohon saksi rujuk borang serah-menyerah bertarikh 17.7.2008. Adakah ini borang serah menyerah yang kamu maksudkan?
A;    Ya, ini adalah borang serah menyerah barang kes antara saya dan Jude.

Q;    Ada tandatangan kamu?
A;    Sebelah kiri manakala DSP Jude sebelah kanan.

NH:    Mohon ditandakan sebagai P80- borang serah menyerah bertarikh 17.7.2008

P80- borang serah menyerah bertarikh 17.7.2008

Q;    Mohon rujuk ID57. Ada tandatangan kamu di envelope ini?
A;    Di bahagian belakang ada saya tandatangan dan note ‘for dna profiling’.

Q;    Itu tulisan kamu?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Masih ada seal?
A;    Ya. Masih ada seal forensic dan Jabatan Kimia Malaysia.

Q;    Bi bahagian hadapan tulisan tersebut, siapakah yang tulis?
A:    Travers Rpt 4350/03 dan tulisan bertanda no. 4 ditulis oleh Ayuni.

Q;    Cuba lihat butiran di situ. Apa dicatitkan?
A;    Butiran: 17.7.08 sehelai bulu di atas lantai.

Q;    Cuba lihat kandungan dalam ID57 iaitu ID57A. Cuba lihat .
A:    Dalam ini mengandungi sehelai bulu dan saya ada tandatangan dan mencatatkannya.

Q:    Tunjukkan kepada Yang Arif.
A:    (saksi tunjuk)

Q;    Berdasarkan pada catatan dan t/tangan adakah ini bulu yang kamu temui di lantai lokap di D9 IPKKL?
A;    Ya.

NH:    Yang Arif, at this juncture bolehkah eksibit ini ditandakan sebagai P?
KS:    We are objecting and to it’s admissibility and we ask for trial within a trial.
YA:    What is the basis of your objection. The court needs to know. Maybe you can mark as ID at this stage. I don’t know.
SN:    It is ID and …..
NH:    As long as saksi ini sudah camkan semua kita boleh convert kan kemudian selepas hujahan nanti.
YA:    Ya. Kita markkan sebagai ID dahulu.
NH:    Kita tidak perlu panggil saksi ini lagi. Kita boleh convertkan terus.
YA:    Tak apalah. Kalau nak panggil pun tak apa. It won’t take time.
KS:    He has to be called .
YA:    Tak apalah. Itu kemudian.
KS:    It has to be later and depend on admissibility

Q;    Mohon saksi dirujuk ID58. Ada tandaangan kamu pada envelope ini?
A;    Di belakang envelope ini ada saya tandatangani dan saya seal yang saya buat dan catat ‘for dna profiling’.

Q;    Tunjukkan mana seal yang kamu buat?
A;    Seal yang berwarna merah.

SN:    Can we have a look at it?

Q;    Seterusnya ada butiran di hadapan sampul ini. Siapa yang buat?
A;    Catatan di envelope nombor 5 ini ditulis Travers Rpt dan mengandungi catatan sebatang berus gigi warna putih yang dilakukan oleh woman inspector Ayuni.

Q;    Mohon saksi membuka sampul dan melihat ID58A.
A;    Ya, ini berus gigi.

Q;    Cuba lihat pada batang berus gigi ini (mohon izin buka tagging)kalau ada apa2 tandaan
A:    (saksi buka tagging yg terdapat di batang berus gigi) Tidak ada.

Q;    Adakah berus gigi ini penuh atau telah…..
A;    Semasa dirampas ianya dalam keadaan sebegini.

Q;    Rujuk ID59. Ada tandatangan kamu pada envelope ini?
A;    Di bahagian belakang saya tandatangan dan nota ‘for dna profiling’.

Q;    Bagaimana dengan seal?
A:    Selain seal PDRM, saya letak seal warna merah forensic.

Q;    Lihat kandungan ID59A.
A:    Sehelai towel “Good Morning”.

Q;    Ada apa-apa catatan kamu pada tuala “Good Morning” ini?
A;    Di hujung towel saya ada tandatangan.

Q;    Adakah ini tuala “Good Morning” yang kamu temui di lokap D9 di IPPKL pada 17.7.2008?
A;    Ya. Ini tuala yang saya rampas di sel lokap D9.

Q:    Rujuk ID61. Ada tandatangan kamu pada sampul ini?
A:     Ada tandatangan saya dan catatan ‘for dna profiling’ berseal forensic PDRM.

Q:    Ada seal forensic PDRM?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Adakah butiran di hadapan envelope Ayuni yang lakukan?
A:    Butiran di hadapan tanda sebagai eksibit no. 7 satu botol air minuman mineral cactus 500ml di atas tembok tandas lokap.

Q;    Mohon saksi buka sampul ID61 dan lihat kandungan ID61A. cuba lihat di bahagian bontot botol. Ada tandatangan kamu di situ?
A:    Ada.

Q;    Adakah ini botol yang kamu jumpai dalam lokap ID9 di IPPKL pada 17.7.2008?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Semasa kamu dan anggota kamu membuat pemeriksaan dan mengambil barang-barang kes, sepanjang tempoh tersebut adakah kamu dan anggota kamu ada memakai baju keselamatan dan sarung tangan?
A:    Seperti di kondo kami masih dalam overall,sarung kaki dan sarung tangan.

Q;    Adakah untuk tujuan yang sama?
A:    Tujuan yang sama untuk elak contamination dan transfer of evidence.

Q;    Sebelum kamu masuk ke dalam envelope ada anggota yang memegang barang-barang tersebut?
A;    Tidak. Hanya saya seorang saja yang memproses dan memegang barang-barang tersebut.

NH:    Itu sahaja soalan saja.
KS:    No cross-examination.
NH:     Mohon saksi dilepaskan.
YA: kamu boleh turun.

SP 16- Inspektor NurAyuni Dayana Binti Mohd Fuad
Inspektor Latihan di Makmal Forensic PDRM, 28 tahun

Examination-in-chief by NH

Q;    Pernah bertugas di Makmal Forensik PDRM?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Sejak bila kamu bertugas di Makmal Forensic PDRM?
A;    Saya bertugas di Makmal Forensic PDRM sejak 2007.

Q;    Pada 17.7.2008 adakah kamu bertugas?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Pada tarikh tersebut lebih kurang jam 11.40 pagi adakah kamu menjalankan apa-apa tugas di lokap D9 IPKKL?
A;    Pada tarikh tersebut saya bertugas membantu Supt. Amidon bin Anan untuk proses lokap di IPKKL.

Q;    Semasa di lokap di D9 IPKKL ada kamu sendiri masuk ke dalam sel lokap tersebut?
A:    Ada.

Q;    Semasa kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap tersebut ada lihat apa-apa barang di dalam sel berkenaan?
A:    Saya telah melihat berus gigi, ubat gigi, tuala putih, baju oren dan botol air.

Q;    Seterusnya ada sesiapa yang meletakkan tag-tag pada barang-barang di dalam lokap tersebut?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Siapa?
A;    Supt. Amidon.

Q;    Setelah tag-tag diletak pada barang-barang yang ditemui dalam sel lokap tersbeut ada ambil gambar?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Siapa ambil?
A;    L/kpl Mohd Hazri.

NH:    Rujuk gambar P78A-N.

Q;    Adakah ini gambar-gambar yang diambil dilokap D9 berkenaan?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Rujuk kepada gambar 3-12. Gambar 3 di bawah tag 6 adakah ini baju oren yang kamu maksudkan?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Rujuk gambar 7 dan 8. Adakah ini gambar berus gigi yang ditemui dalam lokap D9?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Adakah ini kedudukan asal barang ditemui?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Gambar 9. Apakah anak panah menunjukkan?
A;    Anak panah menunjukkan gambar tuala putih.

Q;    Di bawah tuala tersebut ada apa?
A;    Di bawah tuala tersebut ada baju berwarna oren.

Q;    Gambar 11 dan 12 tag 7 menunjukkan gambar apa?
A;    Gambar botol air.

Q;    Adakah ianya diambil di tempat asal ianya ditemui?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Seterusnya setelah gambar diambil dan letak tag ada pembungkusan barang kes dibuat?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Apa peranan awak dalam pembungkusan barang kes yang dibuat ini?
A;    Saya telah menulis butir-butir barang kes pada atas envelope.

Q;    Setelah itu kamu serahkan kepada siapa?
A;    Saya serahkan kepada Supt. Amidon untuk masukkan eksibit ke dalamnya.

Q;    Dimana kamu tulis di envelope?
A;    Di luar sel dan masih dalam kawasan lokap.

Q;    Dan kamu masuk dan serahkan pada Amidon?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Setelah Amidon masukkan barang-barang ke dalam sampul, adakah sampul disealkan?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Ada Amidon tandatangan di sampul yang disealkan tersebut?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Mohon saksi dirujuk ID57 sekali lagi. Cuba lihat id 57. Siapa yang tulis butiran di hadapan sampul ini?
A;    Saya.

Q;    Bacakan tulisan.
A;    Travers 4350/08 , 17.07.2008 sehelai bulu di atas lantai,IO DSP J Pereira.

Q;    Nombor 4 siapa yang tulis?
A;    Saya.

Q;    Kalau lihat sampul ada tulis sehelai bulu di atas lantai. Cuba lihat kandungan ID57A lihat. Ada atau tidak tandatangan Amidon di atas kertas ini?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Dan ada sehelai bulu ditampalkan di situ?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Rujuk saksi kepada ID58. Siapa yang tulis di hadapan envelope?
A;    Saya.

Q:    Tandaan nombor 5 siapa yang tulis?
A;    Saya.

Q;    Apa butiran yang ditulis?
A;    Travers Report 4350/08- 17.7.2008 sebatang berus gigi di atas lantai, IO DSP J Pereira.

Q;    Kandungan ID58A ada atau tidak catatan kamu tulis berus gigi?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Rujuk ID 59.  Siapa yang tulis di hadapan envelope?
A;    Saya.

Q;    Apakah butiran yang ditulis di situ?
A;    Travers Report 4350/08 17.7.08 sehelai tuala warna putih jenama good morning di atas lantai, IO J Pereira.

Q;    Lihat dalam envelope ada tuala “Good Morning” di dalamnya?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Rujuk ID6.  Siapa yang buat tulisan di hadapan sampul?
A;    Saya.

Q;    Baca butiran.
A;    Travers Report 4350/08 17.7.08 satu botol air minuman jenama Cactus 500 ml IO J pereira

Q;    Camkan tulisan kamu?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Kandungan ID61 ada botol mineral yang kamu maksudkan?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Setelah barang-barang ini diseal ada gambar-gambar diambil?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Adakah ini gambar-gambar yang diambil? P78 gambar 13 dan 14.
A;    Ya.

Q;    Semasa pemeriksaan di lokap D9 adakah kamu ada memakai sarung tangan dan baju khas forensic?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Bagaimana kasut khas?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Apakah tujuan pemakaian ini?
A:    Untuk mengelakkan pencemaran.

Q;    Adakah anggota-anggota yang bersama kamu juga memakai pakaian yang sama?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Sepanjang kamu berada di lokap D9 di IPKKL ada atau tidak kamu sendiri ada memegang mana2 barang2 kes yang disebutkan tadi
A;    Tiada.

Q;    Lebih kurang jam berapa kamu selesai bertugas di lokap D9?
A:    Lebih kurang jam12.40 tengah hari

Q;    Adakah kamu tahu keempat-empat barang-barang kes yang diseal diserahkan kepada siapa?
A;    Ya. Kepada DSP Jude.

Q;    Di mana?
A;    Di bilik mesyuarat di tingkat yang sama.

Q;    Tingkat berapa?
A;    Tingkat 7.

NH:    Itu saja soalan saya.
KS:    No cross-examination.
NH:     Mohon saksi dilepaskan
NH:    Saksi-saksi seterusnya adalah pasukan lokap. Boleh kita teruskan atau kita break…
YA:    Short break. Kita start balik jam 11.00. Half an hour.
[10.35 a.m.] Stand down.

[11.09 a.m.]
SP17- DSP Yahya bin Abdul Rahman
54 tahun, Pegawai Siasatan Kes Bunuh IPKKL

Q;    Pernah bertugas di siasatan jenayah berat dan siasatan khas di D9?
A:    Pernah.

Q;    Sejak bila.
A:    23.2.2008.

Q;    Sehingga bila?
A:    Sehingga sekarang.

Q;    Apakah jawatan kamu di D9 IPKKL?
A:    Jawatan saya ialah DSP kes bunuh di IPKKL.

Q;    Post yang you pegang?
A:    Sama.

Q:    Adakah lokap D9 IPKKL di bawah pengawasan dan penyeliaan kamu?
A:    Ya.

Q;    Lokap D9 berada di tingkat berapa di IPKKL?
A;    Tingkat 7.

Q;    Dalam lokap ini ada berapa sel.
A;    Satu sahaja.

Q;    Jelaskan sebelum masuk ke sel adakah perlu lalu ke kawasan  penjaga lokap.
A;    Sebelum masukkan ke D9 ada inquiry office dan terus ke belakang ada pintu lokap dan ada meja sentry di dalam dan kemudian masuk ke sel itu.

Q;    Kawasan lokap sentry itu ada pintu lokap?
A;    Pintu utama.

Q;    Di lokap D9 IPKKL ada disediakan atau tidak buku lawatan lokap?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Buku itu adakah di bawah jagaan kamu?
A;    Pada masa itu, ya.

Q;    Mohon rujuk buku lawatan D9- adakah ini buku lawatan lokap D9.
A;    Benar.

Q;    Kamu camkan buku ini?
A;    Ya.

NH:    Mohon ditandakan sebagai P81- Buku lawatan lokap m.s. 191.

P81- Buku lawatan lokap m.s. 191.

Q;    Cuba lihat entry 191. Siapa yang tulis entry ini?
A;    Saya sendiri yang tulis.

Q;    Cuba bacakan entry yang ditulis.
A;    17.7.2008 jam 00:10 hrs, dsp yahya rahman. Yang bertugas constable 145182 terdapat okt nama anwar Ibrahim[read]

OKT dalam keadaan sihat dan terkawal.

Q;    Kamu buat lawatan lokap pada 17.7.2008 jam 12.10?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Apakah tujuan lawatan kamu itu?

KS:    It is not admissible because we are not supplied the document under section 51A
SN:    I have no recollection about the document being served
NH:    Ikut maklumat kami sudah serve.
YA:    You all have to sort things out.
KS:    We have to sought it out to determine the admissibility.
NH:    Can we mark it as ID first Yang Arif.
KS:    Can we sought this out?
NH:    If that is the case, boleh saya tanya soalan untuk refresh memory?
KS:    From this document?
NH:    Yes
YA:    Jangan ditandakan lagi. It is not marked as exhibit yet. You have to ask him orally lah
NH:    Yes, I will ask him orally.

Q;    Kamu ingat 17.7.08 jam 12.10 ada kamu buat lawatan lokap?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Kamu ingat?
A;    Ingat.

Q;    Semasa lawatan kamu itu ada sesiapa dalam lokap?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Siapa?
A;    DSAI.

Q;    Ada dia di mahkamah?
A;    Ada.

Dsai dicamkan.

Q;    Apakah tujuan kamu membuat lawatan itu?
A;    Yang pertama untuk memastikan anggota bertugas jalankan tugas. Pastikan orang yang ditahan diberi layanan semasa dalam lokap menurut hak-hak lokap. Juga untuk memastikan keselamatan dan supaya anggota bertugas jalankan tugas dengan betul.

Q;    Semasa kamu buat lawatan di lokap pada 17.7.2008 jam 12.10 itu adakah kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A;    Tidak ke dalam sel. Hanya di lokap sahaja.

Q;    Semasa membuat lawatan lokap, siapa anggota yang sedang bertugas?
A;    L/Kpl Konst Bala dan Rosmaidi.

Q;    Mohon panggil L/ Koperal Rosmaidy dan L/Kpl Bala. Adakah ini mereka?

L/Kpl Rosmaidy dan L/Kpl Balaguru dicamkan.

Q;    Semasa buat lawatan pada 17.7.08 12.10 pagi tersebut adakah kamu serahkan barang kepada pengawal lokap?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Serah barang apa dan kepada siapa?
A;    Kepada L/Kpl Rosmaidy ada bungkusan ada tuala, berus gigi, satu tiub ubat gigi dan  sabun.

Q;    Barang-barang ini untuk siapa?
A;    Untuk tahanan pada masa itu iaitu DSAI.

Q;    Adakah barang-barang yang kamu serahkan itu ianya government issued untuk kegunaan tahanan?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Pohon saksi  ditunjukkan satu contoh barang-barang yang diserahkan tuala, ubat gigi, berus gigi dan sabun. Adakah barang yang kamu berikan kepada Rosmaidi serupa dengan ini.
A;    Ya.

Q;     Ada cop PDRM di situ?
A;    Ya.

NH:    At this juncture mohon ditandakan P untuk dibuat perbandingan.

YA:    P82- Bungkusan mengandungi tuala, berus gigi dan ubat gigi dan sabun.

P82- bungkusan contoh mengandungi tuala, berus gigi dan ubat gigi dan sabun yang diberikan kepada tahanan.

Q;    Semasa kamu buat lawatan selain dari DSAI, ada tahanan lain dalam sel tersebut?
A;    Tidak ada.

Q;     Seterusnya di lokap D9 itu ada atau tidak disediakan buku perharian lokap?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Mohon saksi dirujuk buku perharian lokap D9 IPKKL. Adakah buku ini di bawah jagaan dan kawalan kamu?
A;    Ya.

Q;    Ada tandatangan kamu?
A;    Ada, di bahagian depan.

P83- Buku Perharian Lokap

NH:    Sebelum itu Yang Arif, kita hendak tunjukkan yang kita sudah serahkan sesalinan buku lawatan lokap kepada pembelaan. Ada tandatangan Cik Nair pun.

SN:    Only the first page.
YA:    So dia terima satu muka surat sahaja lah.
NH:    Kalau begitu kita rujuk muka surat itu sahaja.
YA:    Ya lah. Jangan rujuk semua buku lah.
NH:    Kita akan merujuk kepada muka surat itu sahaja. Kalau kita tidak masukkan buku sebagai eksibit kerana telah diserahkan muka surat entry 191 sahaja.
KS:    Not the whole book
NH:    Ya.
YA:    Ok lah. That will be entry berapa.
DN:    Pohon entry 191 ditanda sebagai P83.

P83 – Entry 191.

Q;    Cuba lihat P83 rujuk entry 4142 m.s 147 Buku Perharian Lokap P83. Bacakan
A:    [Jude Pereira bawa satu lelaki melayu.. read].

Q;    Bila tarikh dan masanya?
A:    2305 hrs (11.05 malam) 16.7.2008.

Q;    Soalan saya, adakah kamu ada bersama-sama semasa DSAI dibawa masuk ke lokap IPKKl D9.
A;    Ada.

Q;    Siapa lagi pegawai selain kamu semasa DSAI dibawa masuk ke dalam lokap
A;     Saya tak pasti tapi yang saya pasti saya ada di luar

Q;    Bagaimana dengan DSP Jude. Ada dia disitu
A;    Ada

Q;    Sebelum DSAI dibawa masuk ke dalam lokap d9 kamu tahu dia dibawa dari mana?
A;    Bilik mesyuarat D9

Q;   Tingkat berapa
A;    Tingkat 7

Q;    Adakah kamu ada juga di bilik mesyuarat D9 tersebut
A;    Ada

Q;    Semasa DSAI menuju ke lokap siapa yang iringi DSAI ke lokap
A;    Saya dan DSP Jude

Q;    Semasa menuju masuk ke lokap, ada DSAI bawa apa-apa di tangannya
A;    Sebotol mineral water

Q;     Botol mineral water dibawa sampai ke mana?
A;    Masuk ke dalam sel

Q;    Siapa yang membenarkan DSAI membawa air mineral water ini masuk ke dalam sel ini?
A;    Saya sendiri

Q;    Adakah air botol mineral ini govt issued/diberikan oleh kerajaan
A;     Tidak

Q;    Selain dari botol air mineral  ini, ada atau tidak barang-barang lain yang bukan govt issued yang dibawa oleh DSAI?
A;    Ada. DSAI minta kebenaran saya untuk bawa 2 tuala besar

Q;    Kamu benarkan
A;    Ya, budibicara saya

Q;    Masih ingat tuala ini berwarna apa
A;    Berwarna cerah

Q;    Cuba lihat entry 4163 m.s 153. Entry menunjukkan apa? Kalau ikut entry ini adakah DSAI dibawa keluar
A:    Ya

Q:    Jam berapa
A;    0800 hrs (8 pagi)

Q;    Dari mula DSAI ditahan di lokap d9 sehingga beliau keluar jam 8 pagi adakah tahanan lain selain dari DSAI ditahan di lokap tersebut
A;    tidak

Q;    Setelah DSAI keluar dari lokap berkenaan adakah kamu beri arahan kepada anggota penjaga lokap
A;    Ya. Saya arahkan anggota yang bertugas iaitu l/kpl Mohd Adnan dan l/kpl Jasni supaya kunci sel lokap tersebut dan jangan benarkan sesiapa masuk

Q;    mohon panggil l/kpl Jasni dan l/kpl Mohd Adnan. Adakah ini l/kpl Jasni dan l/kpl Adnan yang kamu arahkan
A;    ya


Q;    Adakah kamu sendiri melihat keadaan sel lokap
A;   Ada

Q;    Dari mana kamu lihat
A:    Dari luar sel

Q;    Kamu tak masuk
A;    Ya

Q;    Apa yang kamu lihat?
A;    Barang-arang yang saya serahkan seperti tuala, botol air mineral, berus gigi dan yang lain saya tak berapa nampak

Q;    Kalau kamu boleh ingat berus gigi dan tuala kamu lihat di bahagian mana dalam sel lokap itu
A;    Di lantai

Q;    Bagaimana dengan botol air?
A;    Berhampiran dengan bilik air iaitu di atas tembok bilik air

Q;    Mohon saksi rujuk P78 (gambar) gambar 11 dan 12. Adakah di sini tempat kamu lihat botol air tersebut?
A;    Ya

Q;    Seterusnya gambar 7.  Adakah di sini kamu lihat gambar berus gigi dan tuala?
A;    Benar

Q;    Ada atau tidak pada bila-bila masa kamu menyentuh atau memegang berus gigi tuala dan botol air atau tuala yang disebutkan tadi?
A;    Tidak ada

Q;    Cuba lihat gambar 2. Kalau kita lihat gambar 2 ini, meja pengawal lokap ini di sebelah mana?
A;    Di sebelah kanan

Q;    Sekiranya pegawal duduk di meja pengawal lokap, boleh atau tidak dia lihat botol air di gambar 11?
A;    Dari sudut itu tidak boleh nampak

Q;     Entry 4162 m.s 153. apakah yang dinyatakan di sini?
A;    [read. 0745 hrs DSP Yahya sampai melawat menanyakan sarapan pagi kepada DSAI]

Q;    Kamu buat satu lagi lawatan pada tarikh yang dinyatakan, ada atau tidak kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A;    Tidak

Q;    Entry 4166. Cuba bacakan butiran
A;    [read] Timbalan Pegawai Turus, telah memasuki sel lokap untuk mengambil buku DSAI yang berwarna merah

Q;    Siapa timbalan pegawai turus D9 IPKKL
A;    Saya

Q;    Kamu ada masuk sel lokap untuk ambil buku?
A;    Ya

Q;    Siapa yang meminta kamu untuk ambil buku?
A;    Saya tak pasti

Q;    Buku ini buku apa?
A;    Buku surah yasin

Q;    Semasa kamu masuk ke dalam sel lokap ini mengikut entry ini ada atau tidak kamu sentuh barang-barang seperti tuala, botol dan berus gigi
A;    Tidak, saya lihat dari luar. Saya tidak masuk dalam

Q;    Lihat entry 4167 bacakan
A;     [read] supaya barang-barang kepunyaan DSAI tidak diusik, sentuh atau dialih dari tempat asalnya

Q;    Pegawai turus D9 ini adalah kamu sendiri
A;    Ya

Q;    Kamu yang beri arahan supaya barang-barang DSAI dalam lokap tidak diusik dan disentuh atau dialih
A;    Ya

Q:    Seterusnya rujuk entry 4168. Cuba bacakan
A:    [read]. terima arahan DSP Yahya untuk ambil dua tuala DSAI dari lokap

Q;    Arahan ini dikeluarkan oleh kamu
A:    Ya

Q;    Siapa yang minta tuala itu dibawa keluar?
A:    Saya

Q:    Atas permohonan siapa?
A:    Sebab masa itu tahanan akan dibebaskan

Q:    Jadi kamu bawak keluar barang yang bukan government issued
A;    Ya

Q;    Siapa konst 14765 ini. Tengok entry
A;    Anggota tadi. Salah seorang Jasni atau Adnan

Q;     Selanjutnya, selain daripada buku, 2 tuala besar dibawa DSAI ada atau tidak pihak DSAI meminta apa-apa barang lain di lokap dibawa keluar
A;    Tidak

Q;    Di kawasan lokap D9 IPKKL ada atau tidak dilengkapi dengan CCTV
A;    Ada

Q;    Adakah cctv ini  berfungsi?
A;    Telah lama tidak berfungsi

Q;    Sejak kamu masuk
A;    Sejak saya masuk lagi tidak berfungsi

Q;    Boleh beritahu mahkamah apakah barang-barang yang standard issue di lokap D9
A;    Set barang-barang tuala berus gigi

Q;    Adakah botol air ini standard issue?
A:    Tidak, itu budibicara

Cross examination by Karpal Singh
Q;     Lihat eksibit P68 gambar. Lihat semua gambar dalam eksibit. Jawab dengan ikhlas. Keadaan lokap ini adalah seperti kandang haiwan. Setuju
A;    Tidak

Q;    Kenapa
A;    Itulah std yang dibuat oleh…

Q;    Pandangan sendiri. Gambar 11 keadaan baik, elok
A;    Memang begitulah keadaannya

Q;    Adakah ini dicuci bila-bila masa?
A;    Agak kurang memuaskan

Q;    Lokap D9 ini ada CCTV?
A;    Ada.

Q;    Biasanya beroperasi?
A;    Tidak berfungsi masa itu

Q;    Umumnya beroperasi
A;    Ya

Q;    Seseorang dalam tandas gambar boleh ditangkap oleh CCTV?
A;    Tidak boleh nampak

Q;    Di mana ditempatkan CCTV?
A;    Focus kepada pegawai bertugas, bukan dalam

Q;    Siapa yang arahkan kamu DSAI dimasukkan dalam lokap ini?
A;    Saya tak pasti. Tapi saya diarahkan oleh pegawai atasan

Q;    Siapa
A;    IO yang boleh jawab. Dia pegawai penyiasat

Q;    Siapa yang arahkan?
A;    Saya dan DSP Jude. Pegawai penyiasat yang boleh jawab

Q;    Siapa yang arahkan?
A;    Saya tidak tahu tapi IO case lah

Q;    Jude yang arahkan?
A;    Ya

Q;    Bila dia arahkan
A;    Sewaktu kita ada bincang di bilik mesyuarat dengan DSAI dan selepas itu kita arahkan untuk tahan orang kena tuduh

Q;    Adakah DSAI dibekalkan dengan katil, bantal dan selimut?
A;    Tidak ada

Q;    Kenapa
A;    Memang standard begitu. Saya tidak diisukan benda-benda itu bagaimana saya nak isukan

Q;    Itu semua standard tahanan?

Q;    Ada blanket dibekalkan
A;    Tidak

Q:    Tidak ada katil atau apa-apa?
A;    Ya

Q;    Itu standard di Negara ini
A;    Itu saya tak tahu tapi yang saya jaga saya tahu

Q;    Adakah masa apabila DSAI dimasukkan dalam lokap ini adakah kamu tahu DSAI dia mengalami sakit tulang belakang?
A;    Ada dia maklumkan

Q;    Walaupun itu dia tidak dibekalkan dengan selimut [], bantal, tilam
A;    Tidak

Q;    Kenapa, tidak pedulikan kesihatannya?
A;    Sebab itu kita benarkan dia bawa kain selimut

Q;    Itu mencukupi?
A;    Tak ada satu lokap pun di Malaysia yang bekalkan bantal kepada tahanan

Q;    No human rights
A;    Ada human rights. Tidak ada bantal dan katil dibekalkan

Q;    Itu basic keperluan manusia
A;    Saksi tidak menjawab.

Re examination

Q;    Adakah katil bantal selimut merupakan standard isu government kepada tahanan
A;    Tidak

Q;    Tidak ada katil dan bantal
A;    Ya

Q;    Kamu ada lokap D9 kurang memuaskan. Ada atau tidak lokap dicuci bila tahanan keluar?
A;    Dicuci dan dibersihkan

Karpal: One question thru the court. Regarding the toilet

Q;    Lihat gambar 11 P78. Tandas itu adakah bersih?
A;    Bersih tetapi orang kena tahan yang lain-lain bila kita bersih mereka akan conteng-conteng. Mungkin Nampak kotor tapi bersih. Nampak kotor sebab cat dah luntur

Q;    Ini adakah bersih dengan ikhlas
A;    Kurang bersih lah

NH:     Mohon saksi dilepaskan.
NH:    Kita ada 4 lagi saksi lokap tak berapa panjang. Boleh kita sambung petang.
KS:     At 2.45 pm I have the decision[].
YA:    Ok. 2.45pm.
[11.59 a.m.] Stand down.

[2.56 p.m.]
NH:    Dengan izin, mohon panggil Lans Koperal Nik Rosmady Nik Ismail.
SN:    YA, could we just make a comment? We objected to Buku Lawatan for reason that the front cover doesn’t given to us. The second page is given to us, but the cover was not, that’s why we couldn’t recognize. It was given to us earlier. What can I suggested is, maybe we can just compare before it start.

SP18: Nik Rosmady Nik Ismail
Bahagian trafik Jalan Bandar, umur 29 tahun.
SP18 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Q:    Sebelum bertugas di trafik Jalan Bandar, kamu bertugas di mana?
A:    Di IPK Kuala Lumpur, kem komandan.

Q:    Kamu adalah bertugas sebagai Penjaga lokap?
A:    Ya, sentry lokap.

Q:    Di lokap D9 di IPK KL, ada sediakan buku per harian lokap?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Mohon rujuk P83. Lihat entri 4136 m/s 146. Boleh beritahu mahkamah siapa yang tulis entry ini?
A:    Saya yang tulis.

Q:    Menurut entri ini, kamu masih bertugas pada 16 Julai jam 7.01 malam?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Dengan siapa kamu masuk bertugas ketika itu?
A:    Konstabel Balakuru.

Q:    Semasa kamu bertugas, ada atau tidak tahanan dalam sel lokap itu?
A:    Tiada OKT dalam tahanan. Lokap kosong.

Q:    Rujuk entry 4140 m/s 417, siapa yang tulis?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Mengikut entri ini, kamu ada buat pemeriksaan lokap?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Apa yang kamu dapati?
A:    Tahanan masih tiada. Lokap kosong. Keadaan terkawal dan baik.

Q:    Seterusnya, entri 4141, ada atau tidak kamu buat pemeriksaan lokap?
A:    Saya ada buat pemeriksaan, lokap masih kosong.

Q:    Semasa kamu  buat pemeriksaan, kamu seorang diri atau bersama Encik Bala?
A:    Saya bersama Konstabel Balakuru.

Q:    Semasa kamu buat pemeriksaan pada entri 4141, kamu kata lokap kosong. Ada kamu jumpa apa-apa barang dalam lokap?
A:    Tiada sebarang barang pun dalam lokap.

Q:    Rujuk 4144, m/s 148, siapa yang tulis entri ini?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Adakah entri ini merujuk pada daftar barang kes OKT?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4142. Siapa yang tulis?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Mengikut entri ini, apa yang berlaku?
A:    Pukul 11.05 malam, satu OKT dibawa masuk oleh Tuan Jude. OKT tersebut ialah DSAI.

Q:    Kalau kita rujuk balik entri 4144, kamu daftarkan barang-barang OKT, maksudnya barang siapa?
A:    Barang DSAI.

Q:    Semasa kamu membuat pendaftaran, DSAI berada di mana?
A:    Dalam sel lokap.

Q:    Mohon saksi rujuk buku lawatan lokap, P81, entri 191. Kalau mengikut entri ini, ada lawatan yang dibuat sesiapa ketika itu?
A:    Masa itu, satu orang pegawai melawat lokap, iaitu DSP Yahya.

Q:    Semasa DSP Yahya membuat lawatan lokap pada tarikh itu, ada DSP Yahya serah apa-apa pada kamu?
A:    Ada. Satu bungkus plastic putih, yang mengandungi berus gigi putih, ubat gigi, tuala good morning, dan seketul sabun kecil.

Q:    Mohon saksi rujuk P82. Adakah barang yang diserah itu ialah ini?
A:    Benar.

Q:    Semasa barang tersebut diserahkan kepada kamu, ada dimaklumkan barang-barang tersebut untuk siapa?
A:    Untuk tahanan OKT, DSAI.

Q:    Cam DSAI, ada di mahkamah?
A:    Ada.

DSAI dicamkan.

Q:    Selepas kamu menerima barang-barang ini daripada DSP Yahya, apa yang kamu lakukan kepada barang-barang tersebut?
A:    Saya terima daripada DSP Yahya dan saya serahkan kepada DSAI. Beliau  terima di dalam sel, dan letak atas lantai lokap.

Q:    Masuk tak sel lokap?
A:    Saya tak masuk.

Q:    Sila rujuk entri 4145 m/s 150. Siapa yang tulis entri ini?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Apa yang dicatatkan?
A:    DSP Jude telah bawa keluar DSAI.

Q:    Entri 4146?
A:    Saya tulis. DSAI dibawa masuk balik oleh Jude.

Q:    Semasa DSP bawa keluar DSAI, ada Jude bawa masuk sel lokap tersebut?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Beliau ada masuk sel lokap ketika bawa masuk DSAI dalam lokap?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Sepanjang DSAI dibawa keluar oleh DSP Jude, ada atau tidak tahanan lain dimasukkan ke dalam sel lokap ini?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Entri 4147, siapa tulis?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Mengikut entri ini, pukul berapa kamu selesai tugas?
A:    1.30 pagi.

Q:    Sebelum kamu selesai tugas, ada periksa lokap?
A:    Ada, saya lihat DSAI dalam lokap.

Q:    Ada apa-apa lagi kamu lihat di lantai lokap?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Setelah kamu selesai tugas, siapa yang ambik alih tugas kamu?
A:    Lans Koperal Nadimin dan Konstabel Azry.

Q:    Sepanjang kamu bertugas pada 16 Julai 2008 jam 7.01 malam sehingga 17 Julai jam 1.30 pagi, ada atau tidak kamu masuk ke dalam lokap di mana DSAI ditahan?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Sepanjang tempoh kamu bertugas, ada kamu sentuh apa-apa barang dalam sel berkenaan?
A:    Tiada.

NH:    YA, itu sahaja soalan untuk saksi ini.
KS:     Tiada soalan cross.
NH:    Pohon saksi dilepaskan.

NH:    Pohon saksi seterusnya dipanggil, SP19.

SP19 –  Konstabel Azry bin Mohd Toyab
Pengawal Sentri Lokap D9 IPK KL, umur: 26 tahun.
SP19 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu. Pengawal Sentri Lokap D9 IPK KL, umur: 28 tahun.

Q:    Sejak bila kamu bertugas di D9, IPK KL?
A:    Selama 3 tahun, sejak 2008, bulan 8.

Q:    Di lokap D9, ada atau tidak buku per harian lokap disediakan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Mohon saksi dirujuk buku harian lokap P83. Cuba lihat 4148, m/s 150. Mengikut entri ini, ada kamu bertugas?
A:    Ada bersama Kopl Nadimin.

Q:    Pukul berapa kamu masuk bertugas?
A:    Ada, pukul 1.30 pagi, 17/7.

Q:    Ada tahanan dalam sel lokap?
A:    Ada. DSAI.

Q:    Cam, ada di mahkamah?
A:    Ada.

DSAI dicamkan.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4160, kalau ikut entri ini pukul berapa kamu selesai bertugas?
A:    7.25 pagi. 17/7.

Q:    Sepanjang kamu bertugas Dari 1.30 pagi hingga 7.30 pagi, selain DSAI ada tahanan lain dalam lokap?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4150 m/s 151, semasa kamu bertugas dengan Encik Nadimin, ada atau tidak lawatan di buat?
A:    Ada. C/insp Zulkifli bin Fajar.

Q:    Seterusnya, 4151, ada atau tidak satu lagi lawatan dibuat? Siapa?
A:    Ada. C/insp Zulkifli bin Fajar.

Q:    Di kedua dua lawatan ini, ada atau tidak C/insp Zulkifli bin Fajar masuk dalam sel lokap?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Rujuk 4158, satu lagi lawatan semasa kamu bertugas, siapa yang melawat?
A:    C/insp Zulkifli bin Fajar.

Q:    Semasa lawatan ini, ada atau tidak beliau masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Sepanjang kamu bertugas pada tarikh yang disebutkan, ada atau tidak kamu atau Kopl Nadimin, masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A:    Tiada.

NH:    Itu sahaja soalan saya, YA.

KS:    Tiada soalan cross.

NH:    Pohon saksi dilepaskan.

NH:    Pohon panggil SP20, L/Korp Mohd Jasni bin Jaafar, (bertugas anggota polis bahagian trafik).
P20 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Q:    Sebelum bertugas di cawangan trafik, kamu bertugas di mana?
A:    Cawangan kem komanden, IPK KL.

Q:    Pengawal lokap pada ketika itu?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Lokap mana?
A:    Lokap D9 IPK KL.

Q:    Pada 17 Julai 2008 semasa kamu bertugas sebagai penjaga lokap, sebelum itu, ada atau tidak sediakan per harian lokap?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Ada atau tidak kamu membuat catitan dalam buku perharian lokap tersebut?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Cuba rujuk P83, di entri 4161, m/s 152, siapa yang tulis entri ini?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Pada pukul berapa kamu mula bertugas?
A:    7.26 pagi, 17/7/2008.

Q:    Siapa anggota bersama-sama kamu bertugas pada hari tersebut?
A:    Konstabel Adnan Basri.

Q:    Semasa kamu bertugas pada tarikh berkenaan, ada atau tidak tahanan dalam lokap?
A:    Ada. DSAI.

Q:    Kamu cam?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Ada dalam mahkamah?
A:    Ada.

DSAI dicamkan.

Q:    Masa kamu  buat perhatian, adakah kamu tahu di mana dia berada?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Ketika itu apa yang kamu lihat di dalam lokap?
A:    Tahanan OKT iaitu DSAI .

Q:    Masa kamu masuk itu, kamu buat perhatian dalam sel lokap, apa kamu lihat dalam lokap tersebut?
A:    Barang-barang seperti tuala mandi, tuala kecil, buku berwarna merah, ubat gigi dan berus gigi dan sabun mandi dalam sel lokap.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4163, m/s 153, kalau mengikut entri ini, ada sesiapa buat lawatan ke dalam lokap?
A:    Ada, ACP Razali bin Basri dan ASP [] bin Ahmad.

Q:    Ada mereka masuk dalam sel lokap?
A:    Tidak.

Q:    Ketika mereka berada dalam kawasan lokap, ada perbualan yang kamu dengar? Apa?
A:    ACP Razali menanyakan DSAI mengenai sarapan pagi, dan seterusnya bawa DSAI keluar lokap.

Q:    Setelah mendengar perbualan itu, ada kamu dengar DSAI lakukan?
A:    Ada, DSAI menuju ke tandas lokap lalu saya mendengar seolah beliau menggosok gigi.

Q:    Apa yang anda lihat lagi? Selepas itu, ada atau tidak ACP Razali dan ASP Zhafni membawa DSAI keluar?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Cuba lihat entri 4164 m/s 153, pukul berapa DSAI dikeluarkan?
A:    Pukul 8.10 pagi, 17/7/2008.

Q:    Selepas beliau dibawa keluar, ada atau tidak pintu sel lokap tersebut dikunci?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Selepas pintu sel lokap itu dikunci, ada atau tidak mana-mana tahanan dibawa masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A:    Tidak.

Q:    Setelah DSAI dibawa keluar, ada atau tidak kamu memerhati ke dalam lokap sekali lagi?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4165. Siapa yang buat entri ini?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Cuba bacakan apa yang Encik dapati selepas DSAI keluar lokap? Cuba bacakan.
A:    Tuala mandi, tuala kecil, buku berwarna merah, berus gigi, ubat gigi dan sabun yang mandi masih dalam sel lokap.

Q:    Selain itu, ada tak buat catatan dalam poket diari encik?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Pohon saksi dirujuk pocket book saksi. Pocket book ini kepunyaan siapa?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Baca entri 62 di m/s 41.
A:    Lans Kopl 142183 dan Konstabel 147675 periksa lokap D9 IPK KL dapati barang-barang DSAI seperti dan sabun mandi masih lagi berada dalam sel lokap, termasuk pakaian lokap berwarna oren.

Q:    YA, mohon tanda dan kemuka pocket book sebagai P84.

Pocket book ditanda sebagai P84.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4166. Siapa yang tulis entri ini?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Mengikut entri ini, ada DSP Yahya masuk ke dalam sel lokap?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Untuk mengambil buku merah?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Dan selain DSP Yahya, ada orang lain masuk bersama DSP Yahya?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4167, siapa yang tulis?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Mengikut entri ini, apa arahan yang kamu terima daripada DSP Yahya?
A:    DSP Yahya mengarahkan supaya barang-barang DSAI tidak disentuh atau dialih dari tempat asal.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4171, pukul 11.40 pagi, siapa yang datang ke lokap?
A:    Pasukan forensic yang diketuai oleh Supt Amidon.

Q:    Ketika itu, masa mereka baru tiba, pintu lokap berkunci?
A:    Ya, Konstabel Adnan yang bukakan.

Q:    Sila rujuk entri 4172. Sapa yang tulis?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Menurut entri ini, jam berapa Supt Amidon dan pasukannya keluar lokap?
A:    12.35 tengahari.

Q:    Selepas pasukan forensic keluar, kamu ada buat pemeriksaan lokap? Ada kamu melihat ke dalam sel lokap?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Ada kamu perhatikan apa-apa dalam lokap tersebut?
A:    YA, saya pohon rujuk pocket book. Saya tak ingat.

Q:    Dari mula kamu bertugas pada 17/7, pukul 7 pagi itu, sehingga pasukan forensic diketuai Supt Amidon datang mengambil barang2 kes dari lokap, selain DSAI, ada tak tahanan lain menggunakan sel lokap itu?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4173, m/s 156, sapa yang tulis?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Menurut entri ini, kamu selesai bertugas jam berapa?
A:    1.08 tengahari.

Q:    Sepanjang kamu bertugas pada 17hb tersebut, sehingga pasukan forensic datang, ada atau tidak kamu masuk dalam lokap?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Konst Adnan?
A    Tiada.

NH:    Itu sahaja soalan saya YA.
KS:    Tiada soalan untuk cross.
YA:    Saksi dilepaskan.

NH:    Pohon panggil SP21.
SP21 – Konstabel Adnan Basir bin Safriel.
Bertugas di Kem komanden IPPK KL, umur 27 tahun.

Q:    Kamu pernah bertugas sebagai pengawal lokap D9, IPK KL sejak bila?
A:    1.4.2004.

Q:    Di lokap D9, ada sediakan perharian lokap?
A:    Ada.

Q:    Mohon saksi rujuk P83. Rujuk entri 4162 m/s 153. Siapa tulis entri ini?
A:    Saya.

Q:    Apa yang ditulis?
A:    Timbalan Pegawai Turus D9, DSP Yahya sampai ke lokap D9 dan menanyakan sarapan pagi kepada DSAI.

Q:    Semasa beliau buat lawatan, ada atau tidak dia masuk dalam sel lokap?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Rujuk entri 4168 ms 154. Siapa buat catatan ini?
A:    Kamu.

Q:    Apa arahan yang diberikan?
A:    DSP Yahya mengarahkan saya supaya ambil dua tuala kepunyaan DSAI dalam sel lokap, dan lipat dalam keadaan kemas serahkan kepada DSP Yahya.

Q:    Ada kamu ambil dua helai tuala seperti yang diarahkan?
A:    Ya.

Q:    Semasa kamu mengambil 2 tuala, ada atau tidak kamu menyentuh barang-barang lain?
A:    Tiada.

Q:    Barang ini diserahkan kepada siapa?
A:    Kepada Timbalan Pegawai Turus D9, DSP Yahya.

Q:    Sepanjang kamu bertugas pada 17/7/2008, 7.26 pagi sehingga kamu selesai tugas pada hari tersebut, pukul berapa kamu selesai tugas?
A:    Pukul 1 petang bersama Korporal Jasni.

Q:    Ada atau tidak kamu pada bila-bila masa masuk ke dalam sel lokap selain mengambil sel tuala?
A:    Tiada.

NH:    Itu sahaja soalan untuk saksi ini.
KS:    Tiada cross.

NH:    YA, pada peringkat ini, kami ingin memanggil semula SP15, Supt Amidon untuk rujuk balik barang kes dan mungkin jika peguambela membuat bantahan, kita akan membuat penghujahan.

SP15 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Q:    Mohon saksi dirujuk ID57, ID58, ID59, 1D 61 serta kandungannya. Cuba lihat envelope-envelope dan kandungan, adakah ini envelope yang kamu sealkan, dan kandungan yang kamu perolehi di sel D9 IPK KL.
A:    Ya.

Q:    Kami ingin tanda sebagai P berserta kandungannya juga iaitu ID57A, ID58A, ID59A, 1D 61A.

KS:    YA, we want to object. These exhibits and the rest recovered from the cell is inadmissible. And for that purpose, we want a trial within a trial. We are alleging that unfair methods were used by the police in securing these exhibits. And the court has discretion to exclude admission of such evidence YA, on the basis upon which we alleging that this evidence ought to be excluded. For that purpose, there must be a trial within a trial. We will submit on the necessity of that permohonan. If your Lordship rules that this evidence is inadmissible, then it ought to be excluded []. In the event a trial within a trial is ordered, DSAI will be giving evidence in the trial within a trial. We will submit on that.
YA:    Yes, of course Mr. Karpal still belum habis lagi buat submission lah, we will continue tomorrow. For the time being, DY?
MY:    YA, if I can understand correctly, in most circumstances, especially with regard to confession of the witness, the moment the statement is about to be tendered, then counsel can object on the ground of the involuntariness, then we will know. There are three: inducement, threat or promise that we have to address. Here we talked about unfairness method.

YA:    Now, what I see is they asking the court’s discretion to exclude evidence which is prima facie is admissible, but they want to exclude it on the ground of unfairness.
MY:    I think that there are 2 aspects. Firstly), whether or not we need to have a trial within a trial. 2) Whether or not after we have conducted a trial within a trial, and if it is proven that unfairness method had been employed, whether or not the court can used its discretion exclude it. The question is, I don’t know what is the unfairness method that I have to address.
YA:    They have to show lah. Because they are asking the court’s discretion, so they have to prove.
KS:    The onus is on us. My learned friend knows about that.

MY:    Now this is my problem YA. First, the case of [], Federal Court’s decision 1980; you alleged, I prove, prosecution will prove, then we have rebuttal evidence, but still the prosecution must start first to show the irregularities of this exhibits. So until and unless I know what they are complaining, I wouldn’t be able to address even if we need the trial within a trial. Let alone the evidence that we have after this. I mean, this is the kind of issues that we will address tomorrow YA.
YA:    Tomorrow we will listen to the submission. And next we will see whether a trial within a trial is needed or not.

KS:    So, we need the notes for the purpose of tomorrow’s submission. The notes this morning and afternoon.
YA:    No, it is very difficult for us to transcribe within time actually. We can give you the CD so you can tengok CD.

[3.48 p.m] : Court adjourn.