The Star
KUALA LUMPUR: A RTM video recording of Karpal Singh’s press conference has been admitted as an exhibit in his sedition trial despite the defence’s argument over its admissibility, the court heard.
High Court judicial commissioner Azman Abdullah ruled Wednesday that the mini digital tape was admissible after reviewing past cases and hearing testimonials and submissions from both sides.
“The court finds that it is not premature for the prosecution to get a ruling to admit ID6 (the tape) as P6 (sixth exhibit),” he said.
The recording was made by part-time RTM cameraman Adial Singh at Karpal Singh’s press conference on Feb 6 where he allegedly made seditious remarks against the Sultan of Perak.
Azman ruled that there was no doubt that the tape shown in court was the same tape used to record the press conference.
Furthermore, Adial in his testimony, he said, had also confirmed that the tape had recorded well during the press conference and was in good condition.
This, Azman said, was backed by the testimony of the second witness, Eliani Mazlan, the RTM reporter present during the press conference.
“SP3 (Adial) only emphasised the recording and not its contents. The court is satisfied that as a cameraman he need not understand what is being said at the press conference,” Azman said.
The defence, he said, had also referred to the tape when questioning both witness on Karpal Singh’s conduct during the press conference.
On Tuesday, Karpal Singh’s lawyer Jagdeep Singh Deo had questioned the tape’s admissibility, stating that there were safeguards prescribed by the law before it was admissible.
The prosecution had argued that Adial, 36, was the maker of the 37-minute video, which Jagdeep pointed out had several “gaps” in them.
Jagdeep had also said that Adial did not understand Karpal Singh’s press conference but took it upon himself when to record and when not to record.
Adial had said that the tape was not edited and the “gaps” were the result of him stopping the recording to get “cut ways” shots of the press conference to use for background voice.
The prosecution also called its fourth witness Wednesday, Aishah Ahmad Azam, 25, an RTM reporter who transcribed the tape in the office together with a practical student who had since left RTM.
Aishah, who has been in the job for eight months, told the court that was the first time she was doing a transcript, which she took “about 10 days” to do.
Prosecution would continue questioning the witness Thursday.
Azman ruled that there was no doubt that the tape shown in court was the same tape used to record the press conference.
Furthermore, Adial in his testimony, he said, had also confirmed that the tape had recorded well during the press conference and was in good condition.
This, Azman said, was backed by the testimony of the second witness, Eliani Mazlan, the RTM reporter present during the press conference.
“SP3 (Adial) only emphasised the recording and not its contents. The court is satisfied that as a cameraman he need not understand what is being said at the press conference,” Azman said.
The defence, he said, had also referred to the tape when questioning both witness on Karpal Singh’s conduct during the press conference.
On Tuesday, Karpal Singh’s lawyer Jagdeep Singh Deo had questioned the tape’s admissibility, stating that there were safeguards prescribed by the law before it was admissible.
The prosecution had argued that Adial, 36, was the maker of the 37-minute video, which Jagdeep pointed out had several “gaps” in them.
Jagdeep had also said that Adial did not understand Karpal Singh’s press conference but took it upon himself when to record and when not to record.
Adial had said that the tape was not edited and the “gaps” were the result of him stopping the recording to get “cut ways” shots of the press conference to use for background voice.
The prosecution also called its fourth witness Wednesday, Aishah Ahmad Azam, 25, an RTM reporter who transcribed the tape in the office together with a practical student who had since left RTM.
Aishah, who has been in the job for eight months, told the court that was the first time she was doing a transcript, which she took “about 10 days” to do.
Prosecution would continue questioning the witness Thursday.
No comments:
Post a Comment