In a remarkable about-face, an Ampang Sessions Court judge reversed an earlier decision on the rape of two foreign domestic workers raped by police constable Razali Pilen.

Nothing, however, seems to justify this about-face. The same judge had earlier ruled that the victims looked like part of married couple. Now he says that Razali was lying when he said they agreed to having sex with him.

And then there's the unusual statement of sympathy with the perpetrator. Razali is a man who callously raped two women in a police station, denied the crime and tried to pin the blame on his superior. He brought the entire police force into disrepute. Yet the judge feels sympathy for him.

These discrepancies leave me with cold. No new evidence came forward during the re-trial. The judge had CCTV evidence before him in the first trial.

While I agree with the jail sentence meted out, I cannot help but feel that there were other forces at work. Was the judge caving in to the overwhelming public opinion against his initial verdict? Or were there forces behind the scenes? And why was the same judge sitting on the same trial twice?

It does not uphold my confidence in the judiciary.