RPK detained for questioning?

So you boys better take care not to come down on the wrong side of the Sedition Act and put Kit in hot water!

To those who are so doggedly determined about doing away with the ISA, rather than substituting it with a legislation that better protects due process rather then denies it, here’s your opportunity to discuss the Sedition Act. [deleted]

Comments on the ongoing Altantuya murder trial touches directly on the issue of sub judice. But not every statement made in public on an ongoing trial – if they are limited to the bare facts of the case – is in contempt of court, which is what sub judice is all about.

I am fortunate to be in a jurisdiction which places free speech rights (commonly referred to as First Amendment rights) above all else and against the tight restrictions on comments sub judice. Where I am allows me to write about a trial being “akin to an orchestra and if it was playing the “Titanic” song, then the conductor was conducting the orchestra by satellite from an undisclosed location – except that the Titanic never sank and Jack and Rose never met.”

RPK should talk more often to his lawyer before writing about an ongoing trial to ensure that his comments are not sub judice. Apparently, RPK’s reckless disregard for the law has given the puppetmaster a golden opporutnity to flex his muscles which he now does with glee!

But the Sedition Act? Now that is a different ball game.

“Any offence in the latter category would fall under “contempt of court” to be dealt with by the presiding judge for the Altantunya case. When did it become an offence under the Sedition Act?” Kit

Why has the presiding judge not put a gag order on the case?? Any lawyer in our midst?

“Dear undergrad2.
I read somewhere, you are returning to malaysia. are you?” ADAM

Yes. I’m considering to return to set up a rehab center for internet addicts and a School of Acting for our MPs some of whom are below 35 years of age and others who have been MPs for far too long that they’ve come to regard Parliament as their playground!

“Do not worry. Compared to what has appeared on RPK’s blog, the comments on Kit’s blog are far less likely to be termed as seditious. ” GODFATHER

They could haul you up for making comments that are prima facie seditious. Whether your comments meet the definition of “seditious” is up to the courts and not the police. Be that as it may, the idea is to intimidate more than anything else.

Phoning you up and asking you to be present on such a day at such and such a time, and then making sudden appearances at your gates in their patrol car with lights flashing and within sight of your neighbors, and knocking on your door in the early hours of the morning, is enough to intimidate most of us.

It is akin to the abuse of prosecutorial powers by the AG.

The idea is to have you detained for having committed some offence, allegedly of course, then making you spend hours in the police lock-up without food or water before freeing you, and later arresting you and hauling you up to face the magistrate. There is then the question of bail being refused or bail being set too high, and if bail is granted you find you don’t have the funds to pay it. You are returned to your cell at the police station “to serve out the rest of your sentence”. You contact your relatives to inform them of your new found fame and ask that a lawyer be woken up from his sleep to come and see you ASAP.

The purpose is not to make those charges stick but to punish you in the process. If you are a person with deep pockets you may like to consider suing the government for the abuse of prosecutorial powers by the AG. That or you may be reduced to playing cat and mouse with the police. Imagine what that does to your life! Never mind your sex life!

Bear in mind that the police has taken possession of RPK’s hard drive. Their forensic experts are now looking frantically for information on his computer’s hard drive to see if he could be detained and charged for some crime.

This is like police searching your house without a search warrant for evidence of a crime. The police in Malaysia does not need a search warrant before they could search your property for evidence unlike in some other jurisdictions. They don’t need to be armed with a search warrant issued by a judge. They only need to be armed with “reasonable cause” – not any reasonable cause but reasonable cause to believe that you have committed a crime. If they search your house to look for evidence of a crime they have no ‘reasonable cause’ to believe has been committed, then the search is illegal. But does that mean any evidence found may not be admissible in a court of law?

If you think you’re out of the woods think again! It is all about the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ and what this creature called ‘reasonable cause’ is about. Can you identify this creature called ‘reasonable cause’ when you see it?

The fruit of the poisonus tree? You’re right. It has nothing to do with the tree in your backyard which has some odd looking fruits hanging from it.

It is also about going on a ‘fishing expedition’ and if you think fishing expedition here is about going on your fishing trip one lazy afternoon to catch a few fish, it is time to consult our resident legal expert, Jeffery QC.

Procol,

Did you do your CLP?

What is your opinion on the police seizure of RPK’s computer hard drive, whether information obtained is admissible in court?

“I think the provisions give police considerable latitute to search n seize therefore, they need not proceed without warrant.” Procol

I think you meant to say “they do not need a search warrant to proceed”!

Agreed. The police does not need a search warrant to enter your house, or to look into your computer hard drive, to look for evidence which could be in the form of information – if the case is one involving sedition, for example. But what good is evidence if it is not admissible in a court of law?

“In asking why owner of a green Suzuki Vitara [who has been identified with his name, address and IC number tallying with that in the JPJ registration] has not be picked uip for investigation, isn’t Raja Petra pointing out the “:errors or defects otherwise in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects…..” Jeffrey QC

I’m no expert on the law of sedition. So allow me to place a very strong caveat in what I’m about to say in case a reader or two take my opinion as gospel truth.

RPK to me seems to be doing more than just pointing out defects in the administration of justice when he wrote the said article. He is suggesting unequivocally that the process is corrupt and that the administration of justice has been tampered with ‘by higher powers’ and by doing so invites public scorn on the country’s justice system. Now it is important to also note that he does this while the Altantuya murder trial is an ongoing case and this is important. I don’t know how else to put it.

In my opinion, there is enough material in there to satisfy Sec. 3 (1) (c). Sedition Act 1948.

Also note that despite saying that he understood the meaning sub judice, RPK then went on to do just that i.e. made comments sub judice!

Having said that to be fair to Jeffrey QC, he did say that that could be a defense i.e. pointing errors in the administration of justice with a view to remedying them. A defense is just that i.e. a defense.

To: Jeffrey QC

Has there ever been a sedition case in Malaysia when the prosecution lost – or at least a botched prosecution?

“Dear Adam Yong, thank you for your kind words. I’m not a lawyer.” procol

I think you meant to say you’re not a practicing lawyer.

“Ur right, s.112 statements can’t be used at all after the amendment, not even for impeachment.” procol

Amendment? What amendment? Something in the pipeline? S. 112 statement is after all an out-of-court statement. It is his court testimony that is the evidence. Like all statements, it should be available for use in the impeachment process.

What about memory refreshing – which is akin to admitting hearsay evidence by the back door?