Thursday, July 19, 2018

RESPECT PRIVACY AND NO TO MONITORING OF INTERNET USAGE/ACTIVITY IN MALAYSIA -Article 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be respected-


Media Statement – 20/7/2018

RESPECT PRIVACY AND NO TO MONITORING OF INTERNET USAGE/ACTIVITY IN MALAYSIA

-Article 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be respected-

We, the undersigned organisations and groups, are most concern that the fact that all in Malaysians maybe under constant internet surveillance, which would be an invasion of the right to privacy, all on the basis of action by the government to curb child pornography. 

It was reported that the Malaysian police, being ‘….the Bukit Aman's Sexual, Women and Child Investigation Division (D11) principal assistant director Ong Chin Lan said the new Malaysia Internet Crime Against Children Investigation Unit (MICAC) will build a "data library" of pornography users and their surfing preferences…. “We will pick up those who visit these sites regularly. We use software that was specially developed to allow us to identify, locate and track visits to porn sites, especially those involving child porn. “The intelligence we get will be passed on to the Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), so we can obtain the internet users’ details," she said, adding that those being monitored could be called in for questioning or even arrested from their homes…. Internet users who view pornography from the "relative safety" of their mobile phones will not be spared from scrutiny under this system. (Malaysiakini, 9/7/2018)

RIGHT TO PRIVACY A HUMAN RIGHT

Whilst we are against child pornography, we are opposed to any on-going monitoring of internet activity/usage of all in Malaysia, which is an invasion of personal privacy.

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. ‘

Such monitoring also would mean that all other activity on the internet of persons could also very easily be monitored including personal communications, visits to websites, sharing of information and even private documents. This could also include privilege communications between a lawyer and a client.

EVEN IN INVESTIGATIONS, COURT ORDERS NEEDED TO SEARCH AND GET EVIDENCE

It must be pointed out that in criminal procedure, the arrest and/or investigation of a suspect  does not automatically allow even the search of premises, computers, etc without a required search warrant save for very exceptional situations. These warrants are usually issued by a Magistrate or a Judge, on application by the police and/or enforcement officers.

Likewise, for example under the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Identification Act 2009, the police and enforcement authorities cannot even take intimate samples like blood, urine, semen and other tissue or fluid from a person’s body samples without the written consent of the person from whom the samples is/are to be  taken from. For even non-intimate samples, like saliva, hair and a sample taken from a nail, the person from which the sample is to be taken has the right to object hence requiring the obligation to obtain a court order.

As such, the idea of ‘secretive’ arbitrarily on-going monitoring of internet activity/usage of any or all persons, for whatever reasons, must be deplored and opposed.

RIGHT TO SEEK, RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION AND IDEAS THROUGH ANY MEDIA

It is common knowledge that in Malaysia, the government have in the past denied people access to many online news sites and/or websites with opinions and news possibly critical to the past administration(and/or their interest) like even the Wall Street Journal, Malaysian Insider and Sarawak Report, thus depriving those in Malaysia access to alternative views and news that may be relevant to Malaysians.

As such, the blocking of access to websites is best not to be done simply vide arbitrary administrative decisions and/or actions, but must require a court order. Website owners and/or persons affected should preferably be also given the right to be heard before the granting of such court orders, or at worst the ability to challenge and set aside such orders.

It was also recently reported that the Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC)’s network security, new media monitoring, compliance and advocacy sector Chief Fadhlullah Suhaimi Abdul Malek as saying that the commission had blocked 3,781 pornographic websites from 2014 until the end of March. One wonders as to what other websites have been blocked.

Further, a listing of all such websites should be gazetted and made public, possibly also with brief reasons as to why such actions were taken. The right to challenge or judicially review the orders to block access to any websites should be available not just to owners, but also to users.

The right to privacy is sacrosanct and must always be respected, and as such the on-going ‘spying’ of internet usage cannot be tolerated.

Police investigations of suspects of a crime, may warrant the perusal of one’s computers and/or smartphone usage/records, but that too should be only after a relevant court order is applied for and obtained.

Therefore, we the undersigned organisations and group, calls for the immediate halt on all on-going ‘spying’ of internet usage and online activities by the police and/or the government  including Malaysia Internet Crime Against Children Investigation Unit (MICAC), allegedly to detect, locate and record data of traffic for online pornography.

Whatsoever "data library" of pornography users and their surfing preferences and/or any other such data that now exist, as developed by MICAC and/or any other government agencies,  must immediately be erased, and must never be used for whatever reason against any person/s.

The government must respect and protect a person’s right to privacy, this including one’s personal internet/online usage and communications. Any such invasion or interference of privacy must never be permitted or tolerated for whatsoever reason, more so such arbitrary ‘spying’ and keeping records of internet activity of all persons – not simply just a few investigated suspects.

Likewise, the right to information and other views online should also not be arbitrarily denied or suppressed by the government.  Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ , clearly includes right to seek and receive information and ideas online from also websites/internet from all over the world.

Charles Hector
For and on behalf of the 13 groups/organisations listed below

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility (MPSR)
Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor, Malaysia
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India 
Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)
Odhikar, Bangladesh
Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha(MASUM), India 
CAW (Committee for Asian Women)
CENTRAL, Cambodia
Workers Hub For Change(WH4C)
HAK Association, Timor-Leste

Sunday, July 15, 2018

MADPET - Immediate Moratorium of the use of SEDITION ACT and unjust laws pending repeal



Media Statement -16/7/2018

CALL FOR THE IMMEDIATE REPEAL OF SEDITION ACT AND SUCH UNJUST LAWS
-       Immediate Moratorium of the use of unjust laws pending repeal -

MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is appalled by the fact that the draconian Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 was again used against Human Rights Defender and lawyer Fadiah Nadwa Fikri.

These laws undermine freedom of expression and opinion, something that the new  Pakatan Harapan led alternative government, that successfully managed to end the about 6 decade rule of the UMNO-led government committed to repeal.

Fadiah Nadwa Fikri was called in for questioning by the police at IPD Brickfields at 4.00pm on 11/7/2018.(Malaysiakini, 10/7/2018)

Malaysians voted in the new government, and when it came into power, it would have been possible and easy to immediately impose a moratorium on the usage of draconian legislations like the Sedition Act 1948, pending repeal.

Sedition Act

Sedition Act 1948, a law enacted by the British colonial government, makes it an offence to say or do anything that has a ‘seditious tendency’, amongst others that may ‘excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government’. Hence the right to even highlight alleged wrongdoings or promote an opinion(be it good or bad is irrelevant) on how reform should be done, makes a person a possible victim of the Sedition Act.

‘…The Sedition Act 1948 is unacceptable and repugnant to the rule of law for the further reasons that it creates offences arising from an act, speech, words, publication or other thing that are defined as having “seditious tendencies” which are imprecise and without clear boundaries.  Unlike other criminal offences, the offence of sedition does not require mens rea or the element of intent; the correctness of what is done, or the truth of what is said, printed or published is disregarded and not a defence to the offence…’ –Malaysian Bar Resolution

Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998

Section 233 makes any communication over the internet, being ‘…any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. …’ an offence.

‘…it is just too broad and vague, and is open to abuse. For example, the highlighting of violation of human rights or laws, or facts connected to alleged violations of rights/laws, would likely ‘annoy’ or even ‘harass’ the wrongdoer, and for the alleged wrongdoer, it could also be said to be ‘menacing and offensive’. This should never be considered an offence… As such, this section deters even the highlighting of human rights abuses, breaches of law and even possible government wrongdoing. This section even deters the sharing of such relevant and important facts, and/or opinions over the internet…’ – Malaysian Bar Resolution.

MADPET calls for the immediate discontinuation of further investigation and/or prosecution of  Fadiah Nadwa Fikri.

MADPET also call for the immediate announcement of the discontinuation of further action against all persons currently being investigated under the Sedition Act, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and/or other similar draconian legislations.

MADPET urges the government to impose a moratorium on any future investigations on Sedition Act and such laws.

MADPET calls on Malaysia to immediately repeal the Sedition Act, and also such sections in any law that is against freedom of expression and opinion like Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998; There is really no justification to delay and/pr procrastinate the repeal of bad laws on grounds like ‘further study and review’, an excuse often advanced by the past government that Malaysians voted out. Repeal should reasonably and justly be done now, during the 1st sitting of Parliament.


Charles Hector
For and on behalf of
MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)



Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Mandatory Death Penalty Outlawed in Barbados

Mandatory Death Penalty Outlawed in Barbados

The Caribbean Court of Justice has struck down the mandatory death penalty.

BRIDGETOWN, Barbados, Wednesday June 27, 2018 – The High Court in Barbados can no longer impose mandatory death sentences on convicted murderers.

This morning, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the island’s highest court, struck down the mandatory death penalty on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

The judgments, the last which Sir Dennis Byron will deliver as CCJ President as he will demit office next Tuesday, were delivered in a pair of unrelated death penalty cases from Barbados – filed by lawyers for Jabari Sensimania Nervais and Dwayne Omar Severin – that were consolidated because both appeals challenged the murder convictions of each of the men and the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence for murder in Barbados.

Although dismissing the appeals against their convictions, the CCJ ordered that the appellants be expeditiously taken before the local Supreme Court for resentencing.

Before examining the issues raised by the appeal, the CCJ considered the state of the mandatory death penalty in Barbados for murder and found that it was indisputable that the country had acknowledged that it had an obligation to remove such mandatory sentence under Section 2 of the Offences against the Person Act.

Barbados had also given undertakings to the CCJ and the Inter American Court of Human Rights to rectify the mandatory sentence.

The CCJ held that Section 11 of the Constitution, which gives the right to protection of the law, was enforceable, and that the mandatory death penalty breached that right as it deprived a court of the opportunity to exercise the quintessential judicial function of tailoring the punishment to fit the crime.

However, Justice Winston Anderson disagreed with the majority’s view and contended that the appeals should be allowed on the basis that the judicial monopoly on the power to sentence, which is protected by the separation of powers principle, is consistent with “ensuring respect for, and adherence to, the ongoing evolution in the protection of human rights”.

Nervais was convicted of the murder of Jason Barton and the mandatory sentence of death by hanging was imposed on him. Barton was selling from a booth when an alarm was raised that caused him and the people gathered around to run away. Gunshots were fired by a group of men and Barton was struck by a bullet and died. Nervais was later arrested and charged with Barton’s murder after he made oral statements and a written confession to a police officer.

The Court of Appeal in Barbados dismissed his appeal against conviction and affirmed his sentence. Nervais raised a number of grounds of appeal before the CCJ, including addressing the trial judge’s alleged misstep in telling the jury that a witness’ evidence corroborated the disputed written statement.

As his second ground of appeal, Nervais contended that the learned trial judge usurped the fact-finding function of the jury because she determined a fact that was in issue, which undermined his alibi. However, in these and three other grounds raised by Nervais, the Court was satisfied that the judge did not usurp the function of the jury, there was no error or misdirection, and the necessary procedures were followed by the police.

In the other case, Severin was convicted before a judge and jury for the murder of Virgil Barton. The prosecution relied heavily on the evidence of Barton’s nephew, Judd Barton, who testified that he saw two men shoot at the deceased. The decased’s nephew managed to escape, but not before recognizing one of the shooters whom he had seen on two previous occasions.

While investigating the nephew’s suspicions, police conducted a search of Severin’s residence and found a Taurus semi-automatic gun along with 31 9-mm rounds of ammunition in his bedroom. Forensic testing confirmed that three of 14 cartridges retrieved from the murder scene were fired from that gun.

In his appeal to the CCJ, Severin challenged the reliability of Barton’s evidence, the fairness of the informal identification parade, and the instructions given by the judge to the jury at the trial.

After considering Barton’s evidence, the CCJ expressed its satisfaction that the shooter’s features would have been “fresh” in his mind. The court determined that the judge placed a balanced case before the jury, although there was the view that the judge could have been clearer in his lengthy instructions to them.

 

 

The Death Penalty in Barbados

***News***

On 27th June 2018, the Caribbean Court of Justice found Barbados’ mandatory death penalty unconstitutional. That Court delivered its judgment in the appeal of two men convicted of murder and sentenced to death, Jabari Nervais and Dwayne Severin. You can read the full judgment here: Full Judgment 2018-CCJ-19-AJ. You can read the Press Release from Death Penalty Project here. The CCJ also ordered that the two be expeditiously brought before the local Supreme Court for resentencing.

The Court had heard the appeals in January 2018. The two appellants, Jabari Nervais and Dwayne Severin, were sentenced to death in 2012 and 2014 respectively (you can watch a recording of the proceedings from the January hearing here).

Barbados therefore NO LONGER retains the mandatory death penalty for murder. Although the government had committed to abolishing the mandatory penalty on a number of occasions, it had remained on the statute books, and all those convicted of murder were sentenced to death according to section 2 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1994.

Previous moves to curtail the death penalty had been met with resistance. For example, in response to the various rulings of the Privy Council (based in London) which sought to set minimum standards for the implementation of the death penalty (see section on ‘Human Rights‘ for more on this), the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2002 was enacted to remove restrictions on the use of the death penalty. The legislation removed various grounds of appeal including delay and prison conditions, effectively legislating against the previous judgments, and protecting the operation of the death penalty in Barbados. Barbados subsequently withdrew from the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council in London and joined the Caribbean Court of Justice.

However, subsequent rulings from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that Barbados cannot amend its Constitution to insulate the death penalty process from constitutional challenge. The Boyce and Cadogan rulings from this Court have also held that the mandatory death penalty for murder violated the right to life. The Court found that the mandatory penalty was arbitrary, and therefore violated Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

The June 2018 judgment from the Caribbean Court of Justice has held that the ‘savings clause’ at section 26 of the Barbados Constitution (see ‘Savings Clauses‘ section) should be interpreted restrictively, and cannot interfere with fundamental rights.

The Promises of Reform – Proposed Legislation

Barbados committed to reform prior to the mandatory death sentence being found to be unconstitutional – however no action was ever taken. A commitment was given by the Attorney General in May 2009. In March 2014, Barbados again confirmed its intention to abolish the mandatory penalty and the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Bill 2014 was introduced. It remains to be seen whether any of the pieces of draft legislation will now be progressed.

The Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Bill 2014 would abolish the mandatory death penalty for murder by creating a discretionary death penalty, under which persons could be death sentenced or sentenced to imprisonment for life. Under this framework, a person could be sentenced to death where:
  • The murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity or callousness;
  • The murder involved calculated or lengthy planning;
  • The deceased was involved in the administration of justice, i.e. a judge;
  • The deceased was a police officer;
  • The murder was a ‘hate crime’ based on membership of a certain ethnic, religious group etc;
  • The deceased was a witness or a juror;
  • The deceased was vulnerable through age, disability etc;
  • The offender was convicted of 2 or more offences of murder;
  • In the opinion of the court there are other exceptional circumstances which must be taken into account.
However, from the wording of the Bill, it would seem that even the presence of an aggravating factor in this list does not mean that a death sentence is automatic.
Under this legal framework, the imposition of a life sentence would result in either:
  • Life without the possibility of parole when the court is satisfied that the offender poses a serious danger to the public;
  • Or, life imprisonment with the possibility for the grant of a release order.
Where a person is sentenced to death under the 2014 Bill, but more than five years elapses following sentence, that person shall have sentence commuted to life without the possibility of parole.

Other Bills currently before Parliament for consideration include the Penal System Reform (Amendment) Bill 2014 which would provide guidance to judges on the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors at the sentencing stage. The Prisons (Amendment) Bill 2014 which would abolish corporal punishment in prisons. Further, the Bill would also see a prisoners’ release board established and would provide for the early release of prisoners in certain circumstances. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 2014 would introduce mandatory psychiatric evaluations for all those appearing before the High Court on a murder charge. Finally, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Barbados which could facilitate the discretionary system of sentencing for people convicted of murder. Amnesty International (2015) has, however, expressed concern that this Bill would set restrictions on the rights of condemned persons to appeal their sentence on the ground that it constitutes torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.- Caribbean Death Penalty Research

Thursday, July 05, 2018

Suhakam wants no delay in abolition of death penalty

Suhakam wants no delay in abolition of death penalty

Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Razali Ismail said the commission would let Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed decide on the matter without interference from other parties. ― Picture by Choo Choy May
Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Razali Ismail said the commission would let Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed decide on the matter without interference from other parties. ― Picture by Choo Choy May
KUALA LUMPUR July 2 — The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) hopes that the government will not delay in abolishing the death penalty.

Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Razali Ismail said the commission would let Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed decide on the matter without interference from other parties.

“If we take a poll from the Malaysian people now, a lot of them will agree to get rid of the death penalty.

“We should get going and do it within this year. 

“Of course there will be many quarters that will review it from various aspects and on how to deal with certain custom practices, religion and all, but for me that is the business of the PM to put it all together.”

Razali said this to reporters after attending the workshop on the United Nations Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment (Uncat) with the Malaysian Islamic Community here today.

Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary-General of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Moha) Datuk Seri Nadzri Siron said that the death sentence on 17 inmates in death row had been put on hold pending a government review on capital punishment.

He stated that the outcome might take a while as the Cabinet would have to deliberate on the findings if the review.

Nadzri said the review process on capital punishment would begin as soon as possible, as it is a directive from the government.

“The review will involve all laws where the death penalty is prescribed, including the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the Firearms Act 1971,” he said. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 2/7/2018

Home Ministry says death penalty under review, reprieve for 17(Malay Mail, 2/7/2018)

Home Ministry says death penalty under review, reprieve for 17

Deputy Secretary General of the Home Ministry, Datuk Seri Nadzri Siron, speaks during the agenda workshop on Malaysia Accession to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment in Kuala Lumpur July 2, 2018. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
Deputy Secretary General of the Home Ministry, Datuk Seri Nadzri Siron, speaks during the agenda workshop on Malaysia Accession to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment in Kuala Lumpur July 2, 2018. — Picture by Miera Zulyana
KUALA LUMPUR, July 2 — The sentences of 17 inmates on death row have been put on hold pending a government review of the penalty, the Home Ministry announced today.

The ministry’s deputy secretary-general Datuk Seri Nadzri Siron indicated that the outcome may take a while as the Cabinet will have to deliberate on the review findings.

“The review process will begin as soon as possible, as it is a directive from the government,” he said during the agenda workshop on Malaysia Accession to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (Uncat) here.

Nadzri said the review will involve all laws where the death penalty is prescribed, including the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and the Firearms Act 1971. 

“The PH manifesto clearly stated that the use of the death penalty would be reviewed. Whether it will be retained or abolished will depend on the Cabinet,” he said, using the initials for the Pakatan Harapan coalition that came into power after the May 9 general election.

On the government’s accession to the Uncat, Nadzri said the ministry will soon form a special committee to review seven acts pertaining to detention without trial. 

“We have been instructed to review these laws as soon as possible alongside the Attorney-General’s Chamber. The review will most probably conclude by the year’s end,”

“Three of the seven acts to be reviewed include the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, the Prevention of Crime Act 2014, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015,” he said. - Malay Mail, 2/7/2018
 

Friday, June 29, 2018

DPM: Govt may abolish death penalty(Malay Mail, 29/6/2018)

DPM: Govt may abolish death penalty

As of now, the government had deferred the death penalty for drug-related offenders, Dr Wan Azizah said. — AFP pic
As of now, the government had deferred the death penalty for drug-related offenders, Dr Wan Azizah said. — AFP pic
BANGI, June 29 — The government is looking into the need to make amendments to do away with the mandatory death penalty in legislation pertaining to criminal offences, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said today.
As of now, the government had deferred the death penalty for drug-related offenders, she said.

“The last Cabinet meeting resolved to implement the government decision to defer the death penalty imposed on 17 people convicted of drug offences.

“In a broader context, we also touched on the need to consider whether the same thing can be applied for offenders in other crimes,” she said at a press conference after launching EduWAQF, an educational ‘wakaf’ (Islamic endowment) initiated by AWQAF Holdings Berhad, here.

Wan Azizah said this measure would enable Sirul Azhar Umar, who was convicted and sentenced to death over the murder of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu, to return to Malaysia from Australia if he wanted to.

She said Sirul Azhar, who had sought protection in Australia, was unlikely to be allowed to return to Malaysia so long as he had to face a death penalty upon his coming back.

“That’s why we are discussing whether it is necessary for us to change the sentence or replace it with any penalty,” she said.

It had been reported that Australia authorities had allowed a Malaysian request for Sirul Azhar to be extradited on condition that Malaysia agreed to bear the costs but the former Special Action Unit member reportedly refused to return home for fear of having to face the death penalty. — Bernama - Malay  Mail, 29/6/2018

Malaysia to abolish death penalty to bring Sirul home? [NSTTV]


KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia wants to extradite convicted killer Sirul Azhar Umar back home but is facing resistance from Australia due to their anti-death penalty stance.

His extradition with the cooperation of Australia may require for laws against the death penalty to be amended said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

“We want to bring Sirul back but Australia is against the death penalty.

“So to bring him back the law (extradition) has to be amended. We have to discuss whether the death penalty has to be amended or abolished,” she said while launching an EduWaqf programme under Awqaf Holdings Bhd, here yesterday.

Sirul Azhar Umar
Australia’s High Commissioner to Malaysia Andrew Lech Goledzinowski said that the country was against the death penalty and would not be able to help the police in cases which would result in the capital punishment.

He said that even if Australia had evidence that could help the Malaysian police bring about a conviction in a serious crime, it could not provide that assistance if it might lead to the application of the death penalty.

Goledzinowski said this at Suhakam’s National Conference on Death Penalty, here yesterday.

Sirul, a former policeman, who was convicted of murdering Mongolian model Altantuya Shariibuu has once again expressed his willingness to tell-all regarding the high profile murder.

He even wrote a personal letter to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, according to former Umno division leader Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan who met with Sirul at the Villawood Detention Camp in Sydney on June 28.
Sirul and former chief inspector Azilah Hadri, were charged with killing the Mongolian model and mother of two on Oct 18, 2008.

The Court of Appeal had overturned the sentences of Sirul and Azilah in 2013.

The death sentences were upheld by the Federal Court following the prosecution’s appeal.

Sirul, however, fled to Australia before his conviction, where he has been at the Immigration and Border Protection Department’s facility in Sydney since 2015. - New Straits Times, 29/6/2018