Former Sabah infrastructure development minister Peter Anthony has exhausted all legal avenues to have his guilty conviction and three-year jail sentence for document falsification reviewed, as the Court of Appeal dismissed his application today.
The panel of judges - led by Azman Abdullah with Noorin Badaruddin and Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz - unanimously found no need to disturb the previous appellate court and lower courts’ finding against him.
“We find that there is no miscarriage of justice as (the issues highlighted in application) was argued extensively before the previous Court of Appeal panel.
“The absence of this issue in the broad grounds of judgement does not amount to miscarriages of justice, as it was clearly commented in the full judgment grounds.
“It is difficult to assume that this issue was not considered simply because it was not stated or commented on the broad grounds of judgment,” he said.
Additionally, Azman said, the issue was among those argued during Peter’s appeal hearing.
“Our assumption is supported by the full reasons of the previous panel, where the issue was discussed carefully.
“It is not this panel’s duty to hear issues involving evidence and facts that the previous panel has decided.
“We find that there is no miscarriage of justice resulting in a breach of natural justice as the applicant was given the right to be heard, and we have no merit in this application,” he said.
Witness’ police report
The issue was about the police report filed by prosecution witness Shukor Din on Aug 9, 2018, where he claimed that his written statement at the MACC Kota Kinabalu’s office on July 20, 2017, was not true and that he was under pressure at that time.
Shukor lodged the police report nearly a year after he testified in court during the case trial. He claimed, in the report, that the last paragraph of his statement was concocted by the investigating officer to implicate Peter.
The forgery case is linked to the time when Peter was managing director of Syarikat Asli Jati Engineering Sdn Bhd, which at the time was contracted to perform operational and maintenance work for the Mechanical Phase 2A at the UMS campus in Sabah in 2014.
In 2022, the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court found the Melalap assemblyperson guilty of forging a letter from the Universiti Malaysia Sabah deputy vice-chancellor’s office concerning a maintenance contract dated June 9, 2014. He was sentenced to a three-year jail term and an RM50,000 fine.
He had paid the fine and obtained a stay of jail term execution until the Court of Appeal panel, chaired by judges Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Zaini Mazlan and Azmi Ariffin, maintained the Sessions Court’s findings and committed him to jail on March 4 this year.
Sabah state legislative assembly speaker Kadzim Yahya, on March 5, said Peter’s status as an assemblyperson would be determined once he exhausted all legal avenues to seek his conviction overturned.
When contacted after today’s proceedings, Kadzim told Malaysiakini that he would only issue comments on Peter’s assemblyperson status once Peter’s counsels notified him of the Court of Appeal’s final verdict in writing.
Crucial evidence
Peter’s counsel, Haniff Khatri Abdulla, claimed that the previous panel did not consider the police report, deemed a crucial piece of evidence adduced at the final appeal.
He said their consideration was not reflected in their broad grounds of judgment on March 4, but was later included in the judgment’s full grounds published on Aug 18.
The absence of their consideration in the broad grounds caused a miscarriage of justice against Peter.
“Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
“If there is a failure to give reasons for the issues that were argued, then it was deemed that it has not been heard,” said Haniff.
He added that the Court of Appeal has an obligation to provide reasons for its decision.
The previous panel’s failure to do so constitutes a clear denial of natural justice, as it is impossible to discern whether they adequately considered Peter's arguments, particularly regarding the fresh new evidence, he added.
However, this was rebutted by deputy public prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, who submitted that the issue was ventilated and argued extensively during Peter’s appeal hearing before the previous panel.
“This exhibit was found or discovered by the appellant (Peter) after his case was disposed of at the High Court. We did not suppress this evidence.
“We submit that there is no breach of natural justice here, as all parties were allowed to argue on this matter when they chose to submit the exhibit as fresh evidence (before the previous panel).
“Do not put this panel to hear an appeal against the previous panel’s decision.”
Previous panel’s ruling
The previous panel, in their full grounds of judgment, found that Shukor could have maintained what he had stated in the police report during the case trial.
“It was apparent that he did not. Now, whether he had told the truth in implicating the appellant (Peter) would have been tested through cross-examination, even without the police report
“We are unable to agree with the appellant’s contention that he was prejudiced in not being able to cross (Shukor) without the police report.
“Furthermore, the Sessions Court’s findings were not based on (the witness) testimony alone.”
The panel also said that the Sessions Court’s conclusion on finding Peter guilty in 2022 was based on circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.