Azmins perjury conviction flawed, court told
Arfaeza A AzizPublished: Nov 17, 2005 8:01 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
During the celebrated corruption trial of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim six years ago, his aide Mohd Azmin Ali had testified that he was 'forced and tortured' while under police detention and that he had complained about it to a magistrate.
However, Azmin did not actually used the words 'forced and tortured' in his complaint to the magistrate. He was subsequently charged and found guilty of perjury despite that the magistrate had testified that he conclusively believed that Azmin was indeed forced and tortured.
It was this piece of evidence not carefully considered by the judge that the defence argued the 2001 perjury conviction of Azmin, who is Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice-president, was flawed in his appeal at Kuala Lumpur High Court today.
The 2001 perjury conviction against Mohd Azmin Ali, an aide to ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim, was based on unsubstantiated findings, the defence argued today.
During the celebrated corruption trial of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim six years ago, his aide Mohd Azmin Ali had testified that he was 'forced and tortured' while under police detention and that he had complained about it to a magistrate.
However, Azmin did not actually used the words 'forced and tortured' in his complaint to the magistrate. He was subsequently charged and found guilty of perjury despite that the magistrate had testified that he conclusively believed that Azmin was indeed forced and tortured.
It was this piece of evidence not carefully considered by the judge that the defence argued the 2001 perjury conviction of Azmin, who is Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice-president, was flawed in his appeal at Kuala Lumpur High Court today.
Azmin's lawyer CV Prabhakaran said that Sessions Court judge Akhtar Tahir had only relied on the evidence presented by the prosecution in concluding that his client was guilty of giving false statement before a High Court judge at Anwar's trial.
"He (Akhtar) did not consider the totality of the evidence of the defence. He just took into account the evidence given by the prosecution and what was said by the appellant (Azmin) at the High Court," he submitted.
"He neither analysed nor evaluate the evidence of the defence, especially the evidence given by magistrate Azhar Othman, who had agreed that he understood appellant's words to mean that he was forced and tortured during police detention - just what the appellant had said in the High Court."
Prabhakaran also said that the defence had painstakingly made the effort to re-call Azhar - who was initially a prosecution witness - to strengthen its case.
"In the prosecution's case, he (Azhar) said what Azmin had said may indicated that he was forced and tortured. At the defence stage, the magistrate clarified that he had conclusively believed that Azmin was forced and tortured. But yet the sessions judge (Akhtar) said Azmin's words cannot be interpreted in such a way."
Azmin is appealing against Sessions Court judge Akhtar's decision of May 2, 2001, who found him guilty of giving false evidence while testifying in Anwar's corruption trial at the High Court in March 1999 before justice S Augustine Paul.
Akhtar said he was satisfied that there were discrepancies between Azmin's testimony in Anwar's trial and his complaint to the magistrate. He sentenced Azmin to 18 months' jail.
Azmin was originally acquitted from the charge in July 1999 when Sessions Court judge Hamdan Indah found that there was nothing in the prosecution's case that warranted him to enter his defence.
However, the prosecution appealed against the acquittal. On Feb 17, 2000, the appeal was allowed by High Court judge Abdul Wahab Patail, who ordered the case to be sent back to the Sessions Court for Azmin to enter his defence.
This led to Azmin's conviction and sentence, against which he is now appealing before justice Abdul Kadir Musa.
Mere speculation
During the appeal, justice Abdul Kadir asked Prabhakaran if Akhtar's judgment was in line with the decision made by Abdul Wahab.
"Being the subservient court, the Sessions Court has to make its consideration in line with the finding of the High Court, which had concluded that there was prima facie case and ordered the appellant to enter his defence."
"At this point, you also need to tell me whether the High Court made the decision based on the finding of fact or law, or both," said the judge.
The lawyer replied that he was of the view that the finding was neither based on law nor fact.
"Based on the judgment, the judge merely stated that (Sessions Court judge) Hamdan was wrong to have relied on the magistrate's evidence which was merely a speculation and subsequently ordered for the appellant's defence."
On this score, Abdul Kadir stressed that he was not bound by the decision made by the other High Court judge.
"I'm not bound by my learned brother's decision. If there is no reason for me to disagree, then I would agree. But I would not simply agree if it is against my conscience.
"So you can convince me that the decision to call for the defence (by Abdul Wahab) was wrong and that the earlier Sessions Court judge (Hamdan) was right in acquitting your client without calling for his defence."
He also instructed Prabhakaran to submit whether Akhtar's decision was in line with the finding of High Court judge Abdul Wahab.
The appeal continues tomorrow.
However, Azmin did not actually used the words 'forced and tortured' in his complaint to the magistrate. He was subsequently charged and found guilty of perjury despite that the magistrate had testified that he conclusively believed that Azmin was indeed forced and tortured. It was this piece of evidence not carefully considered by the judge that the defence argued the 2001 perjury conviction of Azmin, who is Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice-president, was flawed in his appeal at Kuala Lumpur High Court today.
Azmin's lawyer CV Prabhakaran said that Sessions Court judge Akhtar Tahir had only relied on the evidence presented by the prosecution in concluding that his client was guilty of giving false statement before a High Court judge at Anwar's trial.
"He (Akhtar) did not consider the totality of the evidence of the defence. He just took into account the evidence given by the prosecution and what was said by the appellant (Azmin) at the High Court," he submitted.
"He neither analysed nor evaluate the evidence of the defence, especially the evidence given by magistrate Azhar Othman, who had agreed that he understood appellant's words to mean that he was forced and tortured during police detention - just what the appellant had said in the High Court."
Prabhakaran also said that the defence had painstakingly made the effort to re-call Azhar - who was initially a prosecution witness - to strengthen its case.
"In the prosecution's case, he (Azhar) said what Azmin had said may indicated that he was forced and tortured. At the defence stage, the magistrate clarified that he had conclusively believed that Azmin was forced and tortured. But yet the sessions judge (Akhtar) said Azmin's words cannot be interpreted in such a way."
Azmin is appealing against Sessions Court judge Akhtar's decision of May 2, 2001, who found him guilty of giving false evidence while testifying in Anwar's corruption trial at the High Court in March 1999 before justice S Augustine Paul.
Akhtar said he was satisfied that there were discrepancies between Azmin's testimony in Anwar's trial and his complaint to the magistrate. He sentenced Azmin to 18 months' jail.
Azmin was originally acquitted from the charge in July 1999 when Sessions Court judge Hamdan Indah found that there was nothing in the prosecution's case that warranted him to enter his defence.
However, the prosecution appealed against the acquittal. On Feb 17, 2000, the appeal was allowed by High Court judge Abdul Wahab Patail, who ordered the case to be sent back to the Sessions Court for Azmin to enter his defence.
This led to Azmin's conviction and sentence, against which he is now appealing before justice Abdul Kadir Musa.
Mere speculation
During the appeal, justice Abdul Kadir asked Prabhakaran if Akhtar's judgment was in line with the decision made by Abdul Wahab.
"Being the subservient court, the Sessions Court has to make its consideration in line with the finding of the High Court, which had concluded that there was prima facie case and ordered the appellant to enter his defence."
"At this point, you also need to tell me whether the High Court made the decision based on the finding of fact or law, or both," said the judge.
The lawyer replied that he was of the view that the finding was neither based on law nor fact.
"Based on the judgment, the judge merely stated that (Sessions Court judge) Hamdan was wrong to have relied on the magistrate's evidence which was merely a speculation and subsequently ordered for the appellant's defence."
On this score, Abdul Kadir stressed that he was not bound by the decision made by the other High Court judge.
"I'm not bound by my learned brother's decision. If there is no reason for me to disagree, then I would agree. But I would not simply agree if it is against my conscience.
"So you can convince me that the decision to call for the defence (by Abdul Wahab) was wrong and that the earlier Sessions Court judge (Hamdan) was right in acquitting your client without calling for his defence."
He also instructed Prabhakaran to submit whether Akhtar's decision was in line with the finding of High Court judge Abdul Wahab.
The appeal continues tomorrow.
View Comments0