Well the AG has personally released a clarification about the dismissal of that tahfiz sexual molest case in Perak.
To avoid "misquoting" here is a photo capture of the AGs statement taken from the AGC's Facebook page.
To avoid "misquoting" here is a photo capture of the AGs statement taken from the AGC's Facebook page.
My comments :
The Mother first reported the offence on Aug 14, 2016. The police investigated and there was a medical examination etc. The IP was handed over to the Prosecutor who in September 2016 declared the case as NFA.
This was when the Mother began her complaints that justice had not been served. The Mother did not give up. She began a series of actions (including complaining in writing etc) which did result in the IP being reopened in Feb 2017. The Mother has said that she "submitted" some evidence that she had uncovered.
And Tan Sri AG seems to acknowledge this by saying "IP being reopened in Feb 2017 following new evidence and IP resubmitted to DPP".
Well Tan Sri AG you are acknowledging that the Police had not fully investigated the case earlier. This means that the Prosecutor's NFA in September 2016 was also premature.
Otherwise why would the IP be reopened in Feb 2017 ? What new evidence?
So can you blame the mother for her dissatisfaction? Now becoming disbelief?
The investigators missed some of the evidence the first time around. So how sure are you they now have all the evidence? If they missed some evidence the first time, they can also miss evidence a second time. Or a third time.
Then in February 2018 again the DPP concluded no further investigation.
And for the second time now, the Mother did not give up. She wanted justice for the wrong done to her child.
More than a year later on 3rd June 2019 the Mother wrote directly to the Magistrate.
And for the second time the Mother's persistence paid off - for a while.
Because on 5th Aug 2019 the Magistrate wrote to the Perak Prosecution Office (that is YOU) that this case had been fixed for a hearing on 9th Oct, 2019.
And the Mother herself would be examined by the Court.
I am sure the Mother was elated.
On 27th Aug 2019 the Prosecutor replied to the Magistrate that the case was an NFA. They said the Mother should not have filed a complaint under Sect 133.
The Mother (and the public) are not required to know what the Magistrate should or should not have done.
The Mother only knows that the Magistrate had summoned her to be examined in Court on Oct 9th, 2019.
As far as the Mother (and the public) was concerned it was the Court and the laws of country which were giving her an opportunity to be heard.
But one more time the Public Prosecutor (that is YOU) killed her chance of being heard by the Court by saying the case had been dropped.
You basically pulled the plug. Disappointment for the poor Mother again.
The bigger question is WHY did the Magistrate ignore the NFA (which was already well known) and yet still exercised his/her rights under Section 133 or whatever other section?
Since this is indeed a case of public interest, can you please make known WHY the magistrate decided to call the Mother for an examination by the Court despite the earlier NFA?
The Magistrate certainly knew of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the Police investigations too.
Yet the Magistrate exercised Section 133. WHY?
It looks like not only was the Mother not satisfied with the way the case had been investigated but so was the Magistrate.
Para 9 - Yes Tan Sri AG we all know very well that the DPP, AG etc have your powers under the Federal Constitution. We also know that Wednesday comes after Tuesday. Please do not state the obvious.
What the public wants to know is WHY the case was dismissed?
We ask this question because even the Magistrate was not convinced.
The Magistrate is the Court. If the Court was not convinced, how do you expect the Mother to be convinced? Or the public?
This case does involve public interest. Why is this case of the public's concern?
The Mother first reported the offence on Aug 14, 2016. The police investigated and there was a medical examination etc. The IP was handed over to the Prosecutor who in September 2016 declared the case as NFA.
This was when the Mother began her complaints that justice had not been served. The Mother did not give up. She began a series of actions (including complaining in writing etc) which did result in the IP being reopened in Feb 2017. The Mother has said that she "submitted" some evidence that she had uncovered.
And Tan Sri AG seems to acknowledge this by saying "IP being reopened in Feb 2017 following new evidence and IP resubmitted to DPP".
Well Tan Sri AG you are acknowledging that the Police had not fully investigated the case earlier. This means that the Prosecutor's NFA in September 2016 was also premature.
Otherwise why would the IP be reopened in Feb 2017 ? What new evidence?
So can you blame the mother for her dissatisfaction? Now becoming disbelief?
The investigators missed some of the evidence the first time around. So how sure are you they now have all the evidence? If they missed some evidence the first time, they can also miss evidence a second time. Or a third time.
Then in February 2018 again the DPP concluded no further investigation.
And for the second time now, the Mother did not give up. She wanted justice for the wrong done to her child.
More than a year later on 3rd June 2019 the Mother wrote directly to the Magistrate.
And for the second time the Mother's persistence paid off - for a while.
Because on 5th Aug 2019 the Magistrate wrote to the Perak Prosecution Office (that is YOU) that this case had been fixed for a hearing on 9th Oct, 2019.
And the Mother herself would be examined by the Court.
I am sure the Mother was elated.
Again the Mother's persistence had succeeded.
She was at last going to get justice for her child.
On 27th Aug 2019 the Prosecutor replied to the Magistrate that the case was an NFA. They said the Mother should not have filed a complaint under Sect 133.
Did the Mother mention Sect 133?
Did the Mother even know what is Sect 133?
Or did she write a complaint to the Magistrate simply as a Mother whose child had been assaulted?
It was actually the Magistrate who exercised his/her powers under Sect 133 and ordered the Mother and the DPP to be present in Court on Oct 9th 2019.
The Mother (and the public) are not required to know what the Magistrate should or should not have done.
The Mother only knows that the Magistrate had summoned her to be examined in Court on Oct 9th, 2019.
As far as the Mother (and the public) was concerned it was the Court and the laws of country which were giving her an opportunity to be heard.
But one more time the Public Prosecutor (that is YOU) killed her chance of being heard by the Court by saying the case had been dropped.
You basically pulled the plug. Disappointment for the poor Mother again.
The bigger question is WHY did the Magistrate ignore the NFA (which was already well known) and yet still exercised his/her rights under Section 133 or whatever other section?
Since this is indeed a case of public interest, can you please make known WHY the magistrate decided to call the Mother for an examination by the Court despite the earlier NFA?
The Magistrate certainly knew of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the Police investigations too.
Yet the Magistrate exercised Section 133. WHY?
It looks like not only was the Mother not satisfied with the way the case had been investigated but so was the Magistrate.
Para 9 - Yes Tan Sri AG we all know very well that the DPP, AG etc have your powers under the Federal Constitution. We also know that Wednesday comes after Tuesday. Please do not state the obvious.
What the public wants to know is WHY the case was dismissed?
We ask this question because even the Magistrate was not convinced.
The Magistrate is the Court. If the Court was not convinced, how do you expect the Mother to be convinced? Or the public?
This case does involve public interest. Why is this case of the public's concern?
1. There are too many cases of sexual assault, sodomy, rape going on in these tahfiz schools. But this is NOT part of your jurisdiction. I repeat - this is NOT part of your jurisdiction. N'theless this is part of the reason for the public's concern.
2. The public is wary that the connected, the influential and the rich who get tangled with the law often escape the full force of the law. You will agree that your predecessor was also party to this lapse.
Under that previous administration a high profile corruption trial was also dismissed after the defense counsel wrote a representation to the AG (??) during the course of the trial !!
Under your jurisdiction there is that case from Penang which has been dismissed by your office before going to trial. You certainly have your reasons and your rights under the law and according to the Federal Constitution but n'theless it does not reduce the public's concern.
In this tahfiz case again a well known religious personality is or was linked to the tahfiz (he has since "dissociated" himself from the tahfiz). You may not view this as relevant now in 2019 but the assault happened in 2016. The IP was done in 2016.
The Mother will never feel satisfied with this case being dismissed.
The media says her child is still undergoing counseling at the psychiatric hospital for the trauma he has suffered. It is impossible that the psychiatrists and specialists have been hoodwinked by a 10 year old child into giving him counseling for an imaginary assault.
A crime has been committed. It looks like the criminals will get away.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.