Two lawyers have asked the Bar Council for clarification on the ethical grounds of disclosing sealed evidence, similar to what Mohd Shafee Abdullah has been doing in a series of roadshows.
The duo - Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng and Ipoh Timor MP Thomas Su - posed the question in a hand delivered letter to Bar Council chief executive officer Chin Oy Sim today.
"We are concerned because Shafee was disclosing in-camera evidence, which is not appropriate. There is a purpose why evidence is given in camera.
"We are not only talking about Anwar Ibrahim's case, but we are also talking about the whole legal process. The protection of a victim is gone," Su told reporters.
He pointed out that the purpose of giving evidence in camera is not just to protect the identity of the person, but also to respect the reasons behind a judge's ruling.
Are rape trials fair game too?
Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng and Ipoh Timor MP Thomas Su
Meanwhile, Lim also condemned Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin over his apparent nod for Shafee's roadshows on the Sodomy II trial.
"Following (Muhyiddin's) logic, any rape case or trial, especially involving minors and testimony given in camera can be revealed later, legally. This is wrong," Lim stressed.
In view of this, Lim and Su said, it was necessary for the Bar Council to address the issue and provide guidance for lawyers.
Shafee is a prominent lawyer who was roped in as prosecutor when the government appealed against the High Court's decision to acquit Anwar of his Sodomy II charge.
The prosecution emerged victorious in the Court of Appeal. The Federal Court later upheld Anwar's conviction and five-year jail sentence.
Following this, Shafee gave several talks in Penang and the Klang Valley on the details of the trial, including lurid details of the sodomy act from the in-camera evidence provided by the accuser, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan. - M'kini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.