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
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment