The Court of Appeal has criticised Anwar Ibrahim's statement from the dock in the sodomy II appeal, saying a credible defence meets questions raised by the prosecution.
The panel said evidence from the dock does not carry the same weight as a sworn testimony.
“In our view, the Court of Appeal said the High Court judge could quite properly wonder why Anwar elected to make an unsworn statement as it could be due to his reluctance to put his evidence to the test of cross-examination.
“He had nothing to fear from unfair questions because he would be fully protected from this by his own counsel and by the court,” said the panel in questioning Anwar's move.
In the 85- page judgment finding Anwar guilty of sodomy, the appellate court said Anwar also failed to call his 14 alibi witnesses that included his wife and chief of staff.
“The defence of alibi was abandoned. Anwar's line of defence was that of alibi of which he had given notice before the start of the trial.
"But at the trial, it appears this defence was never pursued for reasons best known to him,” said the three- member bench in the signed judgment.
“It is pertinent to note that an alibi represents a complete defence to exculpate Anwar from the defence charged. We share the sentiments that the court may draw an inference that the evidence of the alibi witnesses could not have assisted the defence,” they said.
Normally judgments in the superior courts are signed by the individual judges who prepared the written judgment but in this case, all three did so.
The panel which heard and allowed the prosecution's appeal comprised Justices Balia Yusof Wahi, Aziah Ali and Mohd Zawawi Salleh.
The opposition leader and Permatang Pauh MP was found guilty by the Court of Appeal last month and sentenced to five years' jail for sodomising Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan (right in photo).
Anwar's statement from the dock highlights the alleged political conspiracy which led to him being charged, the questionable conduct of Saiful, and that the samples taken from the university dropout were not intact following investigating officer Supt Jude Pereira's action.
Court accepts Saiful's evidence
The court also accepted Saiful's evidence and dropped Anwar's counsel the late Karpal Singh's argument who had questioned the victim’s conduct as he could have run away or why he chose to lodge a report two days after the incident.
“There was nothing improbable with his (Saiful's) evidence. We find no ground to disturb the findings of the trial judge on the credibility of Saiful.”
They further contrasted the evidence given in sodomy I where Azizan Abu Bakar was impeached, ad described the evidence in that case, as a far cry from Saiful's in this prosecution's appeal.
In handing down the sentence , the court took into consideration the seriousness of the offence, weighing it against public interest.
“In our view, the sentence of five years imprisonment would serve the ends of justice and is proportionate to the offence committed,” they said.
The panel said evidence from the dock does not carry the same weight as a sworn testimony.
“In our view, the Court of Appeal said the High Court judge could quite properly wonder why Anwar elected to make an unsworn statement as it could be due to his reluctance to put his evidence to the test of cross-examination.
“He had nothing to fear from unfair questions because he would be fully protected from this by his own counsel and by the court,” said the panel in questioning Anwar's move.
In the 85- page judgment finding Anwar guilty of sodomy, the appellate court said Anwar also failed to call his 14 alibi witnesses that included his wife and chief of staff.“The defence of alibi was abandoned. Anwar's line of defence was that of alibi of which he had given notice before the start of the trial.
"But at the trial, it appears this defence was never pursued for reasons best known to him,” said the three- member bench in the signed judgment.
“It is pertinent to note that an alibi represents a complete defence to exculpate Anwar from the defence charged. We share the sentiments that the court may draw an inference that the evidence of the alibi witnesses could not have assisted the defence,” they said.
Normally judgments in the superior courts are signed by the individual judges who prepared the written judgment but in this case, all three did so.
The panel which heard and allowed the prosecution's appeal comprised Justices Balia Yusof Wahi, Aziah Ali and Mohd Zawawi Salleh.
The opposition leader and Permatang Pauh MP was found guilty by the Court of Appeal last month and sentenced to five years' jail for sodomising Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan (right in photo).Anwar's statement from the dock highlights the alleged political conspiracy which led to him being charged, the questionable conduct of Saiful, and that the samples taken from the university dropout were not intact following investigating officer Supt Jude Pereira's action.
Court accepts Saiful's evidence
The court also accepted Saiful's evidence and dropped Anwar's counsel the late Karpal Singh's argument who had questioned the victim’s conduct as he could have run away or why he chose to lodge a report two days after the incident.
“There was nothing improbable with his (Saiful's) evidence. We find no ground to disturb the findings of the trial judge on the credibility of Saiful.”
They further contrasted the evidence given in sodomy I where Azizan Abu Bakar was impeached, ad described the evidence in that case, as a far cry from Saiful's in this prosecution's appeal.
In handing down the sentence , the court took into consideration the seriousness of the offence, weighing it against public interest.
“In our view, the sentence of five years imprisonment would serve the ends of justice and is proportionate to the offence committed,” they said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.