Something is wrong with our judiciary

The charge in Aminulrasyid Amzah's case was not murder, so the sessions court heard it. In deciding the appeal, the High Court can only fall back on the sessions judge's findings of facts.

Therefore, the Aminulrasyid's case must be appealed, following the acquittal of Corporal Jenain Subi for causing the child's death.

The High Court judge in acquitting Jenain had said that the sessions court should not have even called for Jenain to enter his defence. The people ought to know the process the trial has taken to make an informed judgment for themselves.

In the sessions court, the judge hearing a case first of all hears all the witnesses for the prosecution. This is called the prosecution stage of the case. At the end of the prosecution case stage, submissions are made by both the prosecution and defence on whether the prosecution has made a prima facie case.

After evaluating all the evidence adduced, the judge makes a finding as to whether a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution.

If the judge rules that there is no prima facie case, the accused is discharged and acquitted. If a prima facie case has been made out, the accused will have to enter his defence by calling all his witnesses to testify, including himself.

At the end of this, submissions are made by both parties, the prosecution and the defence, before the judge acquits or convicts the accused based on all the evidence from the cases presented by the prosecution and the defence.

High Court judge cannot disturb findings of facts

In Aminulrasyid's case, the sessions judge would have seen and heard evidence from all witnesses, read all documents and reports and would have had the benefit of seeing the witnesses.

The High Court judge does not have that benefit. He only has the benefit of reading the testimony and reading the documents and reports and the submissions of the two parties.

This judge has the power to overturn the decision of the sessions court judge, but must be slow and careful as he cannot easily disturb the findings of facts of the sessions judge.

In this case, it is odd as the corporal fired 21 shots at Aminulrasyid. Why? This question remains a puzzle.

Jenain was not charged with murder, for that could not have been his intention. Causing the death of Aminulrasyid was the subject matter of the charge.

The Court of Appeal must deliberate on all evidence and again the Court of Appeal too does not have the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses, including the accused and the investigating officer.

Members of the public and Aminulrasyid's family must have the benefit of an appeal, whatever the outcome.

---

M MANOGARAN is the Member of Parliament for Teluk Intan.