KUALA LUMPUR: When news of their arrests broke, the media had painted the town red with extensive coverage and photographs of the suspects, especially of the alleged mastermind.
The prominent lawyer, his brother and six others were detained for the murders of millionaires Sosilawati Lawiya and three others. Their bodies were torched and the ashes and bones strewn into a river in Banting.
The police claimed that the brothers could be responsible for a spate of murders, including that of a well-heeled Indian national.
However, they had yet to charge them.
FMT spoke to senior lawyer Jagjit Singh regarding the case, and the latter cautioned the prosecution and the trial judge not to succumb to public pressure.
Jagjit was the lead counsel in several high-profile cases, including the murder trial involving notorious criminal Wong Swee Chin, better known as “Botak Chin”, in the mid-1970s.
He was also involved in the murder trial of Mokhtar Hashim and the more recent case of abused Indonesian maid Nirmala Bonat.
According to Jagjit, the Banting murder case was similar to the cases of Botak Chin and the other two in terms of extensive media coverage.
In view of this, the senior lawyer said the case must not become a trial by media, and the suspects must be accorded a fair hearing.
"The media is heavily prejudiced against the suspects, who until now are unable to give their side of the story. This can be done if investigators and the prosecution work closely in ensuring a fair trial.
“Judges are also humans, they read the papers, they may discuss with their friends or wife and will not forget what they read in the papers. In particular, if the trial judge is not experienced enough.
"They should not succumb to public and media preasure, and ensure justice for the families of the victims, as well as of the suspects,” he added.
'Solid evidence', you say?
The practising lawyer of 35 years also questioned the need to bring the suspects to various crime scenes, when some senior police officers had claimed that there was “solid evidence”.
"Why bring them from one location to another if solid evidence has been obtained?" he asked, adding that the police should not allow the public or media access to these crime scenes until investigations were completed in order not to compromise evidence which could pose problems for DNA analysis.
"Just because you discover a bat and a knife you come out with such statements? How will you know without a chemist and DNA analysis that it is connected to the crime?" he asked.
Senior counsel Akbardin Abdul Kader agreed with Jagjit, saying the discovery of a murder weapon itself had no value.
“You must show some connectivity, there must be some form of nexus between the exhibit and the accused," he told FMT.
"No doubt, the police will say the accused led them to discover the exibit, but the court always ensures that there is some form of independent evidence to connect the accused to the exhibit," he added.
Akbardin said the prosecution should not rush to charge the suspects without all the relevant chemistry and DNA reports.
Any holes in the reports would be strongly challenged by the defence team, he noted.
According to Jagjit, the prosecution would rely on these main points – direct evidence, circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence as well as a crown witness, an accomplice to the said crime.
This accomplice, known as “participis criminis”, would have full knowledge of what happened and the prosecution could use him to ensure that the perpetrators were convicted.
"However, the risk here is that his evidence would not be accepted if the testimony is not collaborated or if the witness turns hostile or his credibility impeached.
"Generally in my experience, a crown witness will toe the line, for he knows that they can be charged together with the other suspects with abetment,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment