The full written judgment convicting opposition
leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy with a prison sentence of five years was
today made available on the Federal Court's official website.
The 116-page judgment was written by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria and is signed by him along with four other members of the bench in a unanimous decision.
The other judges were Court of Appeal President Justice Mohd Raus Sharif and Federal Court judges, Justices Suriyadi Halim Omar, Abdull Hamid Embong and Ramly Ali.
On Tuesday (left), the apex court had only initially issued a 56-page brief of the judgment when delivering its decision.
Justice Arifin in his full judgment said the five-year jail sentence meted onto the opposition leader was not excessive.
“Taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the appellant had taken advantage of his position as an employer of the young victim, the five-year sentence is not grossly excessive.
“We are of the view that if at all the Court of Appeal erred, it was more on the side of leniency,” he said.
On the cross-appeal by the prosecution to enhance the sentence, Justice Arifin said it was inadequate to warrant the apex court's intervention.
“We therefore dismiss both the appeals and the cross-appeal. The sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal is hereby affirmed,” he ruled.
Major points
Anwar was found guilty of commting the offence on his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at a Kuala Lumpur condominium on Jan 26, 2008.
The major points of today's full written judgment are as follows:
The 116-page judgment was written by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria and is signed by him along with four other members of the bench in a unanimous decision.
The other judges were Court of Appeal President Justice Mohd Raus Sharif and Federal Court judges, Justices Suriyadi Halim Omar, Abdull Hamid Embong and Ramly Ali.
On Tuesday (left), the apex court had only initially issued a 56-page brief of the judgment when delivering its decision.Justice Arifin in his full judgment said the five-year jail sentence meted onto the opposition leader was not excessive.
“Taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the appellant had taken advantage of his position as an employer of the young victim, the five-year sentence is not grossly excessive.
“We are of the view that if at all the Court of Appeal erred, it was more on the side of leniency,” he said.
On the cross-appeal by the prosecution to enhance the sentence, Justice Arifin said it was inadequate to warrant the apex court's intervention.
“We therefore dismiss both the appeals and the cross-appeal. The sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal is hereby affirmed,” he ruled.
Major points
Anwar was found guilty of commting the offence on his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at a Kuala Lumpur condominium on Jan 26, 2008.
The major points of today's full written judgment are as follows:
-
Complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan is a credible witness.
-
Investigating officer DSP Jude Blacious Pereira was transparent in
cutting open the plastic bag containing the Saiful's DNA samples as
retrieved by the Hospital Kuala Lumpur.
-
These DNA samples sent to the Chemistry Department on June 30, 2008, remained intact or undisturbed.
-
The DNA samples retrieved from Anwar Ibrahim's cell on July 17, 2008 were not illegally obtained.
-
The trial High Court judge applied the wrong standard of test in not
accepting DNA evidence by the local chemist following testimonies by the
defence's foreign experts.
-
There is nothing to discredit the evidence of the local chemist.
-
The Pusrawi Hospital doctor who first examined Saiful was not a credible
witness following his assertion that plastic was inserted into the
victim's anus.
-
The Court of Appeal applied the correct test in dismissing Anwar's
allegations of a political conspiracy following the opposition leader's
unsworn statement from the dock.
-
Comparing the samples retrieved from Saiful and that from Anwar's cell, 'Male Y' is identified as the opposition leader.
- Spine specialist Dr Thomas Hoogland's evidence that Anwar cannot perform such sexual acts is misconceived.
No comments:
Post a Comment