KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 15 — The Sessions Court here allowed lawyer P. Uthayakumar’s application for police to reveal the number of suspected criminals killed during police shootouts from year 2000 up to the mass rally organised by Hindraf on Nov 25, 2007.
Judge Sabariah Othman also allowed his application for police to disclose details such as their names, age and race at the next hearing on Feb 22.
Uthayakumar made the verbal application yesterday after Bukit Aman CID deputy director Datuk Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani, told the court that police had compiled statistics of people killed during police shootouts.
Uthayakumar submitted today that he needed the statistics for his defence, adding that his comment posted on the “Police Watch Malaysia” website was not mere allegation.
“I have been compiling statistics on these incidents (shootouts) since 2000 based on newspaper reports, but I would rather rely on official figures from police in arguing my case on this issue,” said Uthayakumar who was representing himself.
Deputy public prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin objected to the application on the ground of relevancy to the charge faced by the lawyer, since the burden on the prosecution was to prove whether the article on the website was seditious and not the accuracy of figures stated in the said article.
On Dec 11, 2007, Uthayakumar, 47, pleaded not guilty in the same court to publishing a seditious letter on the “Police Watch Malaysia” website.
The charge under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 carries a fine of not exceeding RM5,000 or imprisonment of up to three years, or both, upon conviction.
Two days later, Uthayakumar was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) following his involvement in street demonstrations here on Nov 25 and for allegedly making seditious remarks against the government.
Acryl Sani, the first prosecution witness when cross-examined for the third day, told the court that police only received a single report on an injured demonstrator.
He said the man was identified as B. Arumugam, 27, who was injured when hit on his nose by a spent tear gas canister fired by police.
However, Acryl Sani disagreed with Uthayakumar that more than 100 demonstrators were injured and they did not lodge police reports since it was very rare for police personnel to be charged for their actions.
However, he agreed with the lawyer that the Special Branch might have some intelligence on the injuries.
Sabariah rejected Uthayakumar’s application for the court to compel Acryl Sani to tender the report to the court.
Uthayakumar was also represented by counsel N. Surendran and Charles Hector. — Bernama
No comments:
Post a Comment