By Dr Chen Man Hin, DAP life advisor

It is common knowledge that the accused person in a criminal case has the right to face his accusers and to question them in a court of law.

However laudable it is that Anwar Ibrahim has been given permission to face his accusers/witnesses in a court of law, it is disappointing that Anwar was not allowed to question the witnesses and must remain silent in court.

This is unusual and runs contrary to established practice, where the accused is permitted to confront his accusers/witnesses and to ask them questions.

In most countries, the law has a Confrontation Clause where in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, and the defendant usually has a right to cross examine the witnesses.
Read the rest of this entry »

By Kuek Ser Kuang Keng | Jun 2, 11
Malaysiakini

Just four days before Anwar Ibrahim begins his defence against the sodomy charge, he has applied to replace the current Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah with a new judge to rehear his trial.

Anwar claimed that Zabidin had prejudged and demonstrated bias in ruling that the prosecution had made a prima facie case against him.

This ruling denied him of a fair trial, which is guaranteed by article 5(1) of the federal constitution, said the opposition leader in his application filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.
Read the rest of this entry »

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal | May 16, 2011
The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 16 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has accused trial judge Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah of “prejudging” the Sodomy II trial with his decision today even before the opposition leader has entered his defence.

The 63-year old PKR de facto leader told reporters although he had expected such a decision, he was “shocked” by Mohd Zabidin’s decision which accepted the prosecution’s arguments wholesale, despite the defence’s objection against complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s credibility as the star witness.

“It does not come as a surprise but what is shocking is that he (Mohd Zabidin) has prejudged the case, and extended it beyond prima facie.

“This makes the position of the defence very precarious,” Anwar said.
Read the rest of this entry »

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal | May 16, 2011
The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 16 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will have to defend himself on a charge of sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan three years ago, the High Court ruled today.

Trial judge Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah concluded that there was a prima facie case against the 63-year old Pakatan Rakyat (PR) de facto leader, facing a second sodomy case charge in 13 years.

He was sacked as deputy prime minister and finance minister after the first case came to light in 1998.

“Prosecution proven all facts to define charge. Prima facie case made out against accused. Accused therefore called to enter defence,” said Mohd Zabidin today.
Read the rest of this entry »

By Singa Pura Pura

The whole of the prosecution’s evidence, taken in its entirety at this stage, would not even pass the test enunciated in the Federal Court in Balachandran v. PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 FC, namely, that:

“The result is that the force of the evidence adduced must be such that, if unrebutted, it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts exist or did happen. In order to make a finding either way the court must, at the close of the case for the prosecution, undertake a positive [maximum] evaluation of the credibility and reliability of all the evidence.

“The test at the close of the case for the prosecution would therefore be: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? This must, as of necessity, require a consideration of the existence of any reasonable doubt in the case for the prosecution. If there is any such doubt there can be no prima facie case. As the accused can be convicted on the prima facie evidence – it [the evidence] must have reached a standard which is capable of supporting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt … The prima facie evidence which was capable of supporting a conviction beyond reasonable doubt will constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Read the rest of this entry »