9.1.2012

So, the final judgment of Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy case was delivered this afternoon. This is surely a date to remember by the Malaysians {for those who care, I may add}. After all the trials & turbulances, the justice is finally served. Alhamdulillah

Well, don't get me wrong. I'm not a BIG fan of DSAI, but I'm a BIG fan of happy endings. All happy things make me happy {most of the times} but I heard Kelantan lost to Negeri Sembilan untuk Piala Sumbangsih a few days ago? Ok, so not happy there la kiranya -.-'

I was busy stuffing my tummy with lamb, chicken, roti nan etc when the news broadcasted on tv. It wasn't because of the Parents' questions on phone last night about this matter, memang mek tak tahu apa-apa.

Memang kena sangat dengan paper mek pada hari ini yakni Law of Evidence tapi alangkah malangnya jawapan mek tidak secemerlang judgment pada hari ini *coughs* Anyhow, good luck untuk adik-adik LL.B Part 1 pada semester depan kerana anda ada a few new cases to read & analyze. Hehe!

Well, if you're interested, may be you can spend some times reading this article by Mr Lim Chee Wee, the President of Malaysian Bar regarding the judgment

Iklan: Malaysian Bar is one of my followers at Twitter btw. How cool is that? WoohOo!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Press Release: Acquittal on charge of consensual sex between adults is in accord with evidence

Monday, 09 January 2012 03:07pm

The Malaysian Bar welcomes the decision of the High Court in acquitting Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The principles of natural justice call for nothing less, in light of the grave concerns over whether the accused’s right to a fair trial was preserved. Based on news reports of the trial, it is clear that the High Court decision is in accord with the evidence for, amongst others, the following reasons: (1) The lack of full disclosure: Both prior to and during the trial itself, the legal team for the defence was denied access to certain documents and physical evidence in the possession of the prosecution, which disadvantaged the accused in the preparation of his defence. (2) Unreliable DNA evidence: There were obvious concerns that the DNA sample submitted as evidence was unreliable or may have been compromised. (3) Certain unusual findings during the trial proceedings:  (a) The trial judge made an unprecedented finding at the end of the prosecution’s case that the complainant was a truthful and credible witness, without the benefit of having heard the defence. (b) While the court allowed the Prime Minister and his wife to be interviewed by the defence legal team, the subpoena issued by the defence compelling the attendance of the Prime Minister and his wife was set aside by the High Court upon the application of the prosecution.  The absence of curiosity in this regard casts grave concerns on the credibility of the complaint in the first place.  (4) The unrefuted relationship between the complainant and a member of the prosecution team, which raised serious questions whether the complainant had access to investigation papers, which would have enabled him to tailor his evidence at trial. The charge against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which is based on an archaic provision of the Penal Code that criminalises consensual sexual relations between adults, should never have been brought. The case has unnecessarily taken up judicial time and public funds.  The Malaysian Bar hopes that the Attorney General would not pursue any appeal, and will instead focus the valuable resources of the Attorney General’s Chambers on more serious crimes. . Lim Chee Wee President Malaysian Bar 9 January 2012 {source: Malaysianbar.org.my}