Altantuya's family should be allowed to access witness statements to cops - lawyer

 

Altantuya Shaariibuu’s family should be able to access statements that the police recorded from potential witnesses as her murder trial had already ended in 2015 with a federal court ruling, a lawyer representing the family submitted today.

Sangeet Kaur Deo is appealing on behalf of the family the Shah Alam High Court decision on July 23 last year which denied their application to obtain the statements recorded by police under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The family seek the statements as part of their ongoing civil action against the police and three others over Altantuya’s murder in 2006.

Among the statements they seek are those that the police recorded from the two former police commandos, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar, who were convicted and sentenced to death over the murder.

During online proceedings before the three-person Court of Appeal bench today, Sangeet submitted that the risk of such disclosure of the statements affecting an ongoing criminal trial is no more.

“The (criminal) investigation is over and the (related criminal) appeal (by the two former police commandos) is over.

“This application is for discovery in relation to the civil trial,” she said.

“We refer to the respondent’s (government) contention (via an affidavit produced at the High Court) that the documents sought cannot be revealed to the applicant (Altantuya’s family) as it jeopardises the confidentiality where the statements were recorded (by the police).

“This affidavit is bare and unsubstantiated. Why the need to protect the maker (of the statements) 10 or 12 years after the case has been closed?

“What is the issue with confidentiality in the (Altantuya) murder case in this country? That has not been explained (by the respondent),” Sangeet submitted before the panel chaired by Court of Appeal judge Nor Bee Ariffin.

“These documents were never intended to be privileged and are not detrimental to public interest.

“The disclosure is sought not by a third party but a related party, namely the family who is seeking to (fight for) their rights (in the civil action) over the death of the deceased,” Sangeet contended, adding that there is no risk to witness tampering as the criminal trial was long over.

Lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo

During counter-submission on behalf of the respondent-government, Senior Federal Counsel Lim Ju Vynn submitted that the family has failed to show why the sought statements are relevant to their civil action.

He contended that this is because among the issues involved in the civil action is whether the government is vicariously liable for the actions of the two former police commandos implicated in Altantuya’s murder.

Lim claimed that the family is not just seeking the Section 112 statements but also the entire investigation papers (IP) for the murder case.

“The appellants (Altantuya’s family) are claiming against the fourth respondent (government) for vicarious liability, but then they seek documents pertaining to the murder investigation.

“The appellants have not shown the relevance of the IPs pertaining to the murder when the issue to be determined (in the civil action) is whether the fourth respondent is vicariously liable (for the actions of the two former police commandos, who are first and second respondent in the matter).

“The scope (of the family’s discovery application) is too wide. The documents must be identified specifically and shown why it is important to the plaintiffs (family).

“Otherwise, it can be regarded as a fishing expedition and affect the fourth respondent,” Lim submitted. For the record, the third respondent in the civil action is political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda.

In counter-submission, Sangeet told the Court of Appeal that the statements are relevant as they pertain to Azilah and Sirul who were police officers at the time of the murder.

“No, we are not seeking the whole police IP, just the Section 112 statements recorded by the police. It (Section 112 statements) does not constitute the whole IP,” she said.

She added that the issue of disclosure and admissibility of the statements in the civil action are two different things.

She said that the family would still need to file an application to admit the documents in the civil action at Shah Alam High Court, in the event that they are actually allowed access to the Section 112 statements.

After submissions from both the legal teams of both the family and the government today, the bench reserved judgment to a date yet to be fixed.

The other two members of the panel today are Mariana Yahya and Supang Lian.

Altantuya’s family filed the RM100 million civil suit against the two former cops, Razak, and the government in 2007.

The family members comprise Altantuya’s father Shaariibuu Setev, his wife Altantsetseg Sanjaa, as well as two of their grandsons, Mungunshagai Bayarjargal and Altanshagai Munkhtulga.

However, Altanshagai’s name was removed as a plaintiff following his death in 2017.

The civil action before the Shah Alam High Court is ongoing.

Altantuya was murdered in Shah Alam on Oct 19, 2006, with her remains blown up using military-grade explosives.

Sirul and Azilah, bodyguards to then-deputy prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, were convicted of the murder, while Razak was acquitted.

The conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2013, and Sirul fled the country for Australia before the Federal Court upheld the conviction in 2015.

Australia reportedly refuses to deport Sirul until Malaysia abolishes its death penalty. - Mkini