The defence raised the issue over Judge Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah’s ruling to deny Anwar access to three Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) doctors’ medical notes.
The judge made the ruling because he felt the defence failed to give reasons on why they needed those documents.
Anwar’s lead counsel Karpal Singh claimed today that the judge’s decision had misinterpreted a Supreme Court decision in 1993, which stipulates that the courts are bound by the decision which states that witness must “place before the court all the data in which he bases his information.”
“Oral evidence by witness is (merely) advisory. Any opinion without stating the reasons is valueless” said Karpal.
Karpal told Mohd Zabidin to focus on Section 45 of the Evidence Act which states that evidence must be produced to back up a witness’ testimony.
“I urge your honour to consider Section 45..I predict when the third witness testifies, he will be “programmed” like the other two doctors,” said Karpal.
The judge however said that Section 45 merely provided for the “admissibility” of opinion, nothing more and denied Karpal a stay of proceedings to file the application.
The application will be filed tomorrow morning.
In his ruling yesterday, Mohd Zabidin said that in Malaysia, the right for an accused to be supplied with the necessary documents depended on the existing criminal procedure code (CPC), as well as the prosecution team.
“SP2 (Dr Razali Ibrahim) was called by the prosecution, what is important for the court is his oral testimony.
“Notes are only to be used to refresh SP2’s memory... it is not legally admissible, and SP2 has said he does need to refer to the notes to refresh his memory.
“The notes are only admissible, if the prosecution decides so. If prosecution does not decide, then the defence cannot demand for the notes,” said Mohd Zabidin yesterday.
This is not the first time Anwar has attempted to remove the judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.