AG asserts duty of 'public interest guardian' after murder charge criticised

Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar today reminded critics of his role as a guardian of the public interest, after more people, including lawyers, questioned the rationale behind the murder charge in the case involving Amirul Hafiz Omar.

Speaking to Malaysiakini, Dusuki again stressed that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) gave due consideration before deciding to charge 28-year-old R Saktygaanapathy under Section 302 of the Penal Code for causing the death of Amirul, a warehouse worker and delivery rider.

“I must act as a guardian of the public interest and ensure justice for the victim’s family, who are seeking fair and equitable justice.

“The death was tragic. Disregarding the lives and safety of other road users is cruel.

“The testimony of witnesses and dashcam footage from a witness’ vehicle at the scene confirms the conduct of the accused. Each case must be examined individually, as they differ in terms of facts and circumstances.

“In other words, on a case-by-case basis. Where sufficient elements exist, we will prefer charges accordingly,” Dusuki said.

Dusuki explained that the accused’s action, purportedly deliberately entering the opposite lane at high speed, created a situation that was “so imminently dangerous” to the deceased, as provided for under Section 300(d) of the Penal Code.

The said law applies where a person commits an act knowing it to be so imminently dangerous that it will, in all probability, cause death.

Lawyers differ on AGC's approach

Yesterday, arguing in favour of the murder charge, lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla said that the AGC’s decision to charge Saktygaanapathy with murder doesn’t mean the accused will be acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove intent.

Haniff told Malaysiakini that even if the prosecution fails to make a case under Section 300 of the Penal Code stick, the law allows for a different charge to be applied at the end of the prosecution.

However, two other lawyers argued that it was still erroneous for the chambers to pursue a murder charge.

Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) co-founder Latheefa Koya criticised such a mindset, stressing that the correct charge must be decided from the beginning and not left for a later point at the end of the prosecution case.

Fellow lawyer Eric Paulsen echoed Latheefa’s sentiment.

He said it is possible to invoke limb (d) of Section 300 of the Penal Code. However, he added that characterising the accused’s act of swerving into the opposite lane in this manner is unlikely to succeed.

Asked why Saktygaanapathy was not charged with both murder and drink driving, Haniff said it was not legally possible.

He said, unlike a corruption case where one crime results in different offences, such as abuse of power and money laundering, both the murder and drink driving charges would have been about causing death.

Thus, he said, the only other option would have been to put drink driving as an alternative charge to murder, which would defeat the purpose of pursuing a murder charge, as this gives the accused an opportunity to evade heavier punishment. - Mkini