| MADPET call for the abolition of the Death Penalty. This call have been supported by the Malaysian Bar, Malaysian Human Rights Commission(SUHAKAM) and many other civil society groups, and also prominent individuals. Many nation states have also been pressing Malaysia to abolish the Death Penalty. Malaysia have been considering the abolition of the death penalty, especially for drug trafficking. The de facto law Minister, and even the Attorney General has taken the position that the Mandatory Death Penalty should be abolished. Amendments that will bring about this is supposed to be tabled in March 2016. Abolishing of mandatory death penalty hailed(Malaysiakini)Abolish the mandatory death penalty and restore judicial discretion in sentencing — Bar associations of Malaysia(Malay Mail)Government should look into fully abolishing death penalty, says Suhakam and MADPET(Rakyat Post)Timely move to abolish mandatory death penalty – MADPET (Malaysian Insider)End of Malaysia’s mandatory death sentence on the horizon(Malay Mail, 17/11/2015)We have highlighted the case of Shahrul Izani, and now we will consider the Judgment of the Court of Appeal. It is sad that law journals do not publish all these death penalty cases, which is a shame...“Knowing your son will die is agonising, but not knowing when is torturous,” -Sapenah Nawawi , 58, the mother of Shahrul Izani(on death row)Amnesty wants moratorium on death penalty(24/2/2016)Trial at First Instance - MOST Important The problem with criminal cases, is that trial at first instance, be it at the High Court and/or Sessions/Magistrate's court is extremely important. It is here that evidence need to be adduced, witness need to be called and questioned or cross-examined. Hence, mistakes of lawyers and the accused at this stage can be fatal. Appeal courts will generally only be considering what transpired in the courts of first instance - the ability to adduce new evidence at the appellate court is rather restrictive? Questions not asked, or the consequence of evidence not challenged at the court of first instance are very difficult to be remedied later. Lawyer's 'mistake' can be fatal Whilst lawyers, may have been educated in the law, it does not prepare them sufficiently for 'court craft'. Sadly lawyers, being human make mistakes, some of which they should never have made. Many lawyers just take up too many cases, and as such would not be able to sufficiently focus on cases. Clients sadly look for the 'cheapest', and many legal aid and even court appointed lawyers do not give enough to ensure the the best for their clients. For lawyers, it is not just knowledge that matter, but also values and attitude... COMMENTS on the Sharul Izani's case based on COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT Looking only at the Court of Appeal judgment, not having access to the High Court Judgment and the Notes of Proceedings(which is a verbatim record of what transpired), I make the following comments.. In Sharul Izani's case, he alleges that the said packages found on the motor-bike, that contained the canabis was not his.... In Sharul Izani Suparman's case, his story as to why he turned and ran when confronted with an a few persons who later identified themselves as police was because he was not wearing a helmet, his motor-bike lights were not working, and because the road tax of his motor-bike had expired. When the police identified themselves(OR did they?), he had already fled abandoning his motor-cycle. Well, for me that is a plausible explanation for his conduct - for after all, the penalty for such traffic offences can be high - now, in Malaysia the minimal fine for any traffic offence is RM300 (whereby Minimum Wage is RM900) - so running away is a common response. But the court did not accept this explanation because it was not raised earlier - and the prosecution witnesses, especially the police, were not asked these questions during cross examination, and this evidence was only presented during the Defence case. Now, no where was these facts, of the 'expired road tax, not wearing of helmet, that his lights were not working' ever contested or disputed. The Court's conclusion was that this was an 'afterthought' and so it was rejected. The court were of the view that this question should have been put in questions to the police. In my opinion, the court is wrong. Now, when it comes to a criminal trial, the prosecution has the onus(obligation) to establish a 'prima facie case', failing which the accused will be acquitted. If they succeed, then and then only then will the accused be asked to present his/her Defence. Now, should the accused assist the prosecution in discharging their responsibility at this stage? Well, in some cases, the answer will be in the negative. Should the accused have raised in cross-examination another plausible reason as to why the accussed fled the scene? Well, they could have reaised the possibility of another reason - the expired road tax, the non wearing of a helmet, the non-working lights ... Alternatively, the Defence could have also recalled prosecution witnesses and asked them these relevant questions....or even expanded on it, having raised the possibility of some other reason in cross examination. Here, it would very much depend on the lawyer - It looks here that the lawyer may have made a serious mistake - it may have been best that the lawyer challenged the version of the prosecution case? Did he do that? Did he not challenge the evidence of the prosecution? Should the accused be blamed for the failings of his lawyer? - It should not be. Well, the duty of the prosecution is to put before the court all material evidence - including evidence that is not favourable to the accused person. Why did the prosecution not adduce this evidence - of expired road tax, not wearing of helmet, motorbike lights not functioning. They should have adduced this evidence, for it explains another reason for running away and abandoning the vehicle. Now, it looks that he also left behing the packages of canabis - this certainly would have raised the possibility that he did not know what the said packages contained. Note also that the accused alleges that he just borrowed the motor-bike from a friend, so if there were packages in the basket, more likely than not, he would have just abandoned it...On the other hand, if these packages were his, and he knew its contents, would he not have taken these packages with him as he fled. His fleeing the scene, abandoning the packages also makes his running away to avoid 'fines and punishment' relating to traffic offences seems plausible. Or did he even know, these people in the car that collided with him, and the plainclothes men were police? Would you run also if a car collided into you, and strange men tried to grab hold of you??? The judgment also does not disclose that there were any evidence of handling the said packages - did someone see him place the coccaine in the motor-bike? Did someone see him walking with the packages before he went and borrowed the motor-bike? Did anyone see the packages in the motor-bike before the incident - are we to believe the police found this later on the abandoned bike? Did the police plant the 'evidence'? Now, what car was the police use - a police car or an unmarked vehicle, The police say that they identified themselves by shouting 'Police" - did the accused hear this? Or did he flee(or continue to flee) out of fear not knowing that the people in the car were police, believing that they may be some 'criminal elements' out to cause him harm or steal from him? Police allege that they acted on information received - when did they receive the said information? What was the information received? Did it identify the accussed? Did it identify the vehicle the accused was using? Was there some recording of the information received adduced in court? Did the lawyer of the accused even challenge this 'information received'? The owner of the motor-bike confirmed that he let the accused use the bike? Why did he not give him a helmet. Did he inform the accused that the lights were not working, or that the road tax was expired. Was there any witness to the alleged conversation and/or events? Well, there is, based on just the judgment of the Court of Appeal, there seem to be too many factors that makes it dangerous to convict the accused... Maybe, the problem was with the lawyer - as a criminal lawyer, he may have 'slipped up' in challenging the prosecution's evidence, adducing the needed evidence(calling the relevant witnesses), ....many a lawyer, I believe, should not even be handling criminal cases - especially death penalty cases. [Maybe, there should be an evaluation of the performance of lawyer's handling of death penalty cases and other legal aid cases >> the evaluatiuon would help these lawyers improve, or alternatively, such 'incompetent or careless' lawyers could be weeded out...Clients know no better but if it was a court-appointed or legal aid lawyer, then these bodies have the responsibility of ensuring standards... Courts also tend to too readily believe the testimony of the police and prosecution witness... Judges need to be more critical of prosecution witnesses - let's also not forget that judges too can ask questions as well... Remember, when a suspect is arrested, the advice of a good lawyer will give is 'shut up' - exercise your right to silence...so, the bringing up matters during a trial should not be taken as an 'afterthought' just because it is raised for the very first time in court. Alibi is different - there is a requirement in law to give prior notice of this before the trial commence... but there is no requirement of saying anything else before the start of the trial. 'Afterthought' - because prosecution evidence not challenged? Was the court saying 'afterthought' because the version of the prosecution case was not challenged at the time they presented their case - well, that is more likely than not the fault of the lawyer >> not the accussed. The lawyer should have known better...?? Accused called as Witness for Defence - An unwise move? The Defence called the accussed as a witness - generally, in a criminal case, one seldoms calls the accused as a witness. Was there any other witnesses called? Looks like none. I would most likely NOT call the accused person as a witness - Why? When faced with cross-examination, there is just too much risk, including also possible damage to credibility based on facts not directly relevant to the case... See, in the Anwar Ibrahim trials, Anwar was never called as a witness... (There are options for the accused including the giving of a statement from the dock[which will not open the accussed to the dangers of cross examination]...which was what Anwar chose to do...). Further, what ever the accussed says that could not be corroborated by other evidence and/or witnesses has little weight. Were there any other Defence witnesses called? The Court of Appeal Judgment, which I found in CLJ (Current Law Journal) Bagi pihak perayu - Suzanawati Ismail; T/n Suzana Ismail & Partners Bagi pihak responden - Tengku Amir Zaki Tengku Hj Abdul Rahman, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara |
|
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN)
[RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: B-05-337-2009]
ANTARA
[DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM]
PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO. 45-89-2004
Antara
Pendakwa Raya
Dan
Shahrul Izani bin Suparman
CORAM:
ABDUL MALIK ISHAK, HMR
AZHAR HAJI MA'AH, HMR
MOHTARUDIN BAKI, HMR
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
[2] Rayuan Perayu telah didengar dan ditolak sebulat suara. Pada asasnya kami bersetuju dengan keputusan dan alasan-alasan penghakiman Hakim bicara. Berikut diperturunkan alasan penghakiman kami. Fakta ringkas [3] Bertindak di atas maklumat, SP6 mengetuai sepasukan polis dari bahagian D9 Ibu Pejabat Kontingen Polis Selangor, telah membuat pemerhatian di kawasan Jalan Haji Othman, Rantau Panjang, Klang. Dalam pemerhatian tersebut, pihak polis telah menahan OKT/Perayu yang pada ketika itu sedang menunggang motosikal jenis Yamaha Sport berwarna merah dengan nombor pendaftaran BDP 8358 yang tidak memasang lampu dalam keadaan mencurigakan yang kemudiannya telah membuat pusingan "U". [4] Polis (SP6) mengekori motorsikal tersebut dan menghalang penunggangnya dengan kereta dengan cara mengiringkan keretanya, dan dalam masa yang sama SP6 telah menjerit memperkenalkan dirinya "polis". Penunggang motorsikal tersebut iaitu Perayu secara serentak telah melompat dari motorsikalnya lalu motorsikal tersebut terjatuh. Perayu telah melarikan diri sehingga ke selekoh dan telah berjaya ditahan selepas berlaku pergelutan. [5] Pemeriksaan badan dijalankan ke atas Perayu tetapi tidak menemui apa-apa barang salah. Dalam pemeriksaan yang dijalankan pada motorsikal tersebut pula, pihak polis telah menjumpai dua beg plastik berwarna merah di dalam bakul motorsikal. Pemeriksaan lanjut menunjukkan setiap satu beg plastik tersebut mengandungi satu ketulan mampat yang berisi dedaun kering disyaki Cannabis. [6] Perayu bersama barang-barang kes telah dibawa ke IPD Klang, penandaan barang-barang kes dilakukan. [7] Pada 18.12.2003 jam 2.28 petang, SP8 telah menyerahkan barang-barang kes kepada Ahli Kimia (SP4) untuk dianalisia. Hasil analisa SP4 ke atas kedua-dua ketulan mampat tersebut, beliau mengesahkannya sebagai Cannabis seperti yang ditakrifkan di bawah s. 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dengan berat bersih 622 gram. [8] Menurut SP5, motorsikal BDP 8358 adalah kepunyaannya dan telah dipinjamkan kepada Perayu jam 8.00 malam yang sama Perayu ditangkap. SP5 juga mengesahkan barang-barang kes (seperti dalam gambar P4A dan P4B) tiada dalam raga motorsikal tersebut semasa Perayu meminjam motorsikal tersebut. Kes prima facie. Possession: [9] Di akhir kes pendakwaan Hakim bicara telah membuat "affirmative finding" bahawa OKT/Perayu mempunyai "mens rea possession" terhadap dadah Cannabis yang menjadi hal perkara pertuduhan. [10] Hakim bicara dengan jelas menyatakan di mukasurat 225 perenggan 14 Rekod Rayuan: "Oleh itu untuk kes ini, berdasarkan maximum evaluation ke atas keterangan-keterangan saksi-saksi pendakwaan keseluruhannya yang didapati "not inherently incredible" dan berpandukan tafsiran "possession" tersebut serta "inferences" yang boleh dibuat berdasarkan keterangan "conduct" Tertuduh apabila ditahan, mahkamah berpuashati bahawa Tertuduh mempunyai "mens rea possession" ke atas ketulan Cannabis tersebut. Oleh kerana berat bersih Cannabis ini melebihi 200 gram, maka berdasarkan s. 37(da)(vi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, mahkamah memutuskan terdapat kes "prima facie " untuk Tertuduh menjawabnya sebagaimana pertuduhan".[11] Dari penelitian Rekod Rayuan, fakta-fakta berikut adalah jelas dan nyata: (a) Perayu dilihat menunggang motorsikal BDP 8358 seorang diri.Conduct. [12] "Perbuatan Perayu melarikan diri". Hakim bicara sedar bahawa jika terdapat dua versi atau inferens; versi/inferens yang memihak kepada Perayu perlu diterima. Prinsip ini telah diputuskan di dalam kes Abdullah Zawawi bin Yusof v. Public Prosecutor [1993] 4 CLJ 1; [1993] 3 MLJ 1. (Rujuk mukasurat 223 perenggan 11 Rekod Rayuan). Walaubagaimanapun Hakim bicara telah membezakan prinsip tersebut dengan fakta kes dihadapan beliau. [13] Hakim bicara menyatakan seterusnya di perenggan yang sama: "... keterangan Tertuduh (Perayu) melarikan diri, menunggang motorsikal tanpa memasang lampu (waktu malam lebih kurang 10.00 malam), serta membuat pusingan "U" perlu dilihat bersama keterangan SP5 (tuan punya motorsikal) bahawa tidak terdapat apa-apa barang di dalam raga motorsikal tersebut semasa Tertuduh mengambil pinjam dari SP5".[14] Fakta di atas diperkuatkan lagi bahawa motorsikal tersebut berada di dalam kawalan dan jagaan Perayu lebih kurang 2 jam sebelum ditangkap serta kedudukan 2 beg plastik merah (P21 dan P25) di dalam raga motorsikal di hadapan penunggang adalah mudah dilihat. Perayu dilihat menunggang motorsikal tersebut seorang diri sejurus sebelum ditangkap, secara "maximum evaluation" adalah menjurus "irresistible inference" bahawa Perayu tahu mengenai dadah-dadah tersebut. [15] Adalah jelas Hakim bicara menilai segala keterangan "as a whole" dan secara "maximum evaluation" memutuskan bahawa Perayu mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai dadah-dadah Cannabis yang menjadi hal perkara pertuduhan. [16] Di dalam kes Aedy Osman v. PP [2011] 1 CLJ 273 Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: "The trial judge, after maximum evaluation of the evidence presented by the prosecution, had come to the finding that (i) the appellant had possession and control over the red bag and thus had knowledge of the contents therein and (ii) since the appellant had attempted to escape before he was apprehended, the appellant must have known of the contents in the bag for otherwise there was no reason for him to put up a struggle. There was no error committed by the trial judge in coming to such a decision".[17] Pengedaran Selepas membuat "affirmative findings" mengenai "mens res possession", Hakim bicara telah mengambilpakai (invoke) seksyen 37(da)(vi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 untuk andaian pengedaran. Ini jelas dinyatakan oleh Hakim bicara di mukasurat 225 perenggan 14 Rekod Rayuan. Andaian ini adalah "rebuttable on the balance of probabilities".[18] Pembelaan. Pada waktu maghrib 25.9.2003 tersebut, sedang Perayu berada di rumah bersama ibu dan adik beradiknya di Rantau Panjang, Klang, beliau telah mendapat panggilan telefon dari kawannya bernama Zaidi mengajaknya makan. Perayu telah meminta Zaidi mengambilnya di rumah, tetapi Zaidi mengatakan beliau telahpun berada di kedai makan dan akan menunggunya di situ. Perayu telah meminta pinjam motorsikal dari abangnya tetapi abangnya tidak benarkan. Perayu selepas itu telah meminta duit daripada ibunya.[19] Selepas itu Perayu telah pegi ke rumah jirannya bernama Mohd. Junaidi (SP5) untuk meminjam motorsikal daripadanya. SP5 telah membenarkan Perayu mengambil motorsikal SP5 iaitu Yamaha BDP 8358 yang terletak di garage rumah. SP5 tidak ikut Perayu ke garage kerana kuncinya sememang sentiasa berada di ignition motorsikal tersebut. Perayu mengatakan beliau selalu meminjam motorsikal SP5 sebelum ini. Perayu mengatakan di dalam keadaan garage yang gelap di situ, beliau telah menghidupkan enjin motorsikal SP5 tersebut dan menunggangnya untuk pergi ke kedai makan di mana Zaidi sedang menunggunya yang terletak di dalam jarak 2 km dari rumah SP5. Perayu mendakwa SP5 telah memaklumkannya sebelum itu bahawa motorsikal tersebut tidak mempunyai cukai jalan dan semasa Perayu menunggang pada malam itu, motorsikal tersebut juga tiada lampu dan beliau juga tidak memakai helmet. Oleh itu beliau menunggang motorsikal tersebut berpandukan cahaya lampu kereta yang lalu lalang dan cahaya lampu rumah-rumah yang berdekatan di sepanjang jalanraya. [20] Adalah tidak dinafikan Perayu meminjam motorsikal BDP 8358 daripada SP5 lebih kurang pukul 8.00 malam hari tersebut. Pembelaan juga tidak mempertikaikan bahawa beliau ditangkap oleh pihak polis lebih kurang pukul 10.15 malam. Ini bererti fakta bahawa Perayu mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan terhadap motosikal tersebut lebih kurang 2 jam. [21] Mengikut SD1 (Perayu) tujuan meminjam motorsikal tersebut untuk ke kedai makan untuk berjumpa rakannya bernama Zaidi. Perayu sendiri menyatakan untuk ke kedai makan itu hanya mengambil masa lebih kurang 10-15 minit sahaja. Perayu juga menyatakan bahawa beliau ditahan oleh polis semasa beliau di dalam perjalanan ke kedai makan untuk berjumpa Zaidi tanpa pergi atau singgah di mana-mana. [22] Hakim bicara membuat "observation"; ke manakah Perayu yang mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan motorsikal tersebut dalam tempoh 2 jam walhal beliau hanya memerlukan 10-15 minit untuk ke kedai makan seperti yang dikatakan. Tiada penjelasan dari Perayu. [23] Hakim bicara sedar bahawa tugas pembelaan hanyalah untuk menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah. Ini jelas dinyatakan di mukasurat 229 perenggan 23 Rekod Rayuan. Walaubagaimanapun dari segi "trite law" untuk menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah mestilah "real doubt" bukan "fanciful or imaginary doubt". Adalah jelas dengan kegagalan Perayu untuk menerangkan tempoh 2 jam beliau mempunyai kawalan dan jagaan terhadap motorsikal tersebut, tidak menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah. [24] Di dalam pembelaan Perayu menyatakan berlaku perlanggaran di antara motorsikal yang ditungganginya dengan sebuah kereta menyebabkan Perayu jatuh. Beberapa orang berbadan besar telah memegangnya, beliau terkejut dan melarikan diri. Semasa sedang berlari itu dia terdengar jeritan "Polis". Ketika itu baru Perayu teringat motorsikal yang ditungganginya itu tiada cukai jalan dan tidak mempunyai lampu serta dia tidak memakai topi keledar. [25] Keterangan ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa Perayu melarikan diri bukan disebabkan ketiadaan cukai jalan, lampu dan topi keledar seperti yang dihujahkan. [26] Mengenai isu motorsikal tersebut tidak mempunyai cukai jalan dan tidak memasang lampu, hanya ditimbulkan semasa pembelaan. Ianya tidak diutarakan semasa menyoal balas saksi-saksi pendakwaan, terutamanya SP6 (Pegawai tangkapan). Hakim bicara memutuskan ianya adalah keterangan fikir semula (afterthought) di perenggan 26 mukasurat 231 Rekod Rayuan. Kami tiada sebab untuk memutuskan sebaliknya. [27] Di dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan Megat Halim Megat Omar v. PP [2009] 1 CLJ 154 di mukasurat 167: "Although in our criminal jurisprudence, there is no burden on an accused person to prove his innocence but merely for him to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, it is trite that his defence should be put to the prosecution at an early stage during the prosecution case. Failure to do so may move the trial court to dismiss a particular line of defence as an afterthought, or a recent invention as happened in this case"[28] Di dalam kes PP v. Dzul Akmal bin Omar [1999] 1 LNS 399: "And, more importantly, it shows that the subsequent evidence of the Respondent when the defence is called, raising the different version for the first time, is a story or description of a version of events woven after hearing the prosecution evidence. Such evidence is not bona fide nor can it have much credibility when weighed against the previously unchallenged evidence of SP4. In the end, while all that can be said is that while the defence version is possible, the fact those assertions were not put to SP4 when it could and obviously ought to have been done, must leave it as a possibility not in the least probable in the circumstances of the case".[29] Pembelaan bukan sahaja penafian fakta yang mengaitkan Perayu dengan dadah-dadah dijumpai malah pembelaan juga merupakan fikir semula (afterthought). [30] Di dalam kes DA Duncan v. Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 LNS 12; [1980] 2 MLJ 195: "Now this evidence, if accepted and believed, is clearly sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the Appellant. The High Court at Alor Setar accepted it and called on the defence. The defence was in effect a simple denial of the evidence connecting the Appellant with the four boxes. We cannot see any plausible ground for saying that the four boxes were not his. In the circumstances of the prosecution evidence, the High Court came, in our view, to the correct conclusion that this denial did not cast a doubt on the prosecution case against the Appellant".[31] Mengenai andaian undang-undang di bawah s. 37(da)(vi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, pembelaan tidak membawa apa-apa keterangan (any plausible explanations), untuk menyangkal andaian tersebut di atas imbangan kebarangkalian. [32] Dengan alasan di atas kami sebulat suara memutuskan bahawa sabitan terhadap Perayu adalah selamat; dengan itu rayuan Perayu ditolak. Sabitan dan hukuman disahkan.
(MOHTARUDIN BAKI)
Hakim
Mahkamah Rayuan Malaysia.
Bertarikh: 12 JANUARI 2012 | ||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment