Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu may be hanged on Good Friday(25/3/2016) - Save Him From the Gallows

Malaysia must stop plans to hang 34 year old Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu. He was convicted of murder, and that carries a MANDATORY death penalty. Now, that Malaysia is in the process of abolishing the death penalty, starting with the Mandatory Death Penalty... 

Both our de factor law Minister, Nacy Shukri, and the Attorney General has expressed their position against the MANDATORY death penalty - and the Minister even said that the proposed amendments to the law may be tabled in this March session of Parliament. As such, logically and reasonably, there must be no hangings carried out at this time.

We recall also the efforts of our royalty, and the government in recent times that have successfully stopped executions, and urge that the same be done...again - Let's save the life of Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu

 

 We recall the case of Chandran s/o Paskaran, who was convicted for a murder in 2003 and sentenced to death by the Johor Baru High Court in 2008.  His execution scheduled for 7/2/2014 was known a few days before that date. This knowledge moved concerned persons and groups including the Malaysian Bar to do the needful to try safe a life. At the eleventh hour, compassion moved the Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan of Johore, who intervened and stopped the hanging of Chandran s/o Paskaran.

Then, in March 2014, we have  the  case of  Osariakhi Ernest Obayangbon (aka Philip Michael), who was convicted of murder, and was alleged to have been on death row for 18 years, who was scheduled to hang on 14/3/2014.

Yet again, prior notice of impending execution moved people to action. The Government of Malaysia, and in particular Nancy Shukri, the de facto law Minister, and Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail, the then Attorney General,  then acted to obtain a stay of execution.  -MADPET:- WHEN PENDING EXECUTION IS NOT A ‘SECRET’, WE ACT TO SAVE LIVES – MINISTER INFORMS OF 2 WHO WERE HANGED IN 2014, WHICH WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT.(1/12/2015)

 

Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan of Kedah (or Perak), can intervene and stop the hanging of Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu [since, the alleged murder happened in Kedah, it is more likely that it is the Kedah Sultan that have the power to stop the hanging. But, then since the hanging may be carried out in Taiping, then the Sultan of Perak certainly may have the power to stop this hanging happening in Perak, in my opinion]

 

Given AG Apandi Ali's position against Mandatory Death Penalty, I do hope that he intervenes to do the needful. He believes that the discretion when it comes to sentencing should rest with the judiciary - and as such, he objects to MANDATORY death penalty. [In fact, after our Malaysian laws are amended, and mandatory death penalty is removed - returning sentencing discretion to Judges, it is only proper that all mandatory death penalty sentences be reviewed by the Judiciary, and hopefully will be commutted.]

 

Attorney-General Tan Sri Apandi Ali said he will propose to the Cabinet that the mandatory death penalty be scrapped, so that judges are given the option to choose between sentencing a person to jail or the gallows. He said mandatory death sentences were a "paradox", as it robbed judges of their discretion to impose sentences on convicted criminals.

"If I had my way, I would introduce the option for the judge in cases where it involves capital punishment. Give the option to the judge either to hang him or send him to prison. "Then we're working towards a good administration of criminal justice," Apandi told The Malaysian Insider in an exclusive interview. -A-G seeking to abolish mandatory death penalty

 

 

Press Release

 

March 23, 2016

Malaysia: Stop execution of prisoner due to be hanged on Friday

The Malaysian government must halt the execution of a 34-year-old man due to be hanged this Friday for murder, said Amnesty International.

Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu’s mother was today advised by officials at Taiping Prison, northern Malaysia, to visit her son for the “last time” and make arrangements for his funeral. Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu was convicted of murder, an offence which attracts the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia.

“Executing Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu would be a regressive step for human rights in Malaysia,” said Josef Benedict, Amnesty International’s Deputy Campaign Director for South-East Asia and the Pacific.

“The mandatory death penalty is a clear breach of human rights regardless of the crime committed. The authorities must step in to prevent this brutal act taking place before it is too late, and instead commute Gunasegar’s death sentence.”

Amnesty International has consistently criticized Malaysia’s practice of “secretive” executions. Information on scheduled hangings is not made public before, or even after, they are carried out - contrary to international standards on the use of the death penalty.

Instead, Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu’s mother Nagarani Sandasamy today received a letter from Taiping Prison officials informing her that he will be executed “soon” and advising her to visit him tomorrow morning. The family was also advised to discuss arrangements to claim the prisoner’s body for his funeral.

Nagarani Sandasamy last visited her son a week ago, when neither were aware that the 34-year-old was scheduled to be hanged just a week later.

Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu was sentenced to death for the fatal stabbing of a man in Sungai Petani, Kedah state, on 16 April 2005.

“As discussions on abolishing the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia continue, the Malaysian government must immediately put in place a moratorium on all executions as a first step towards full abolition of the death penalty,” said Josef Benedict.

Background

No information is made publicly available on individual death penalty cases in Malaysia, while families are often informed at the last minute that their loved ones will be executed.

Senior government officials recently said Malaysia was considering abolishing the mandatory death penalty, which is currently the punishment for crimes including murder and drug-related offenses.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature or circumstances of the crime, the guilt, innocence or other characteristics of the individual, or the method used by the state to carry out the execution.

The death penalty violates the right to life and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

International law and standards prohibit the mandatory imposition of the death penalty as constituting arbitrary deprivation of life, as it denies judges the possibility of taking into account the defendant’s personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offense. - Amnesty International

Thursday, 24 March 2016 | MYT 11:36 AM

Convict's family distraught over last-minute notice of execution

by qishin tariq

PETALING JAYA: Amnesty International Malaysia has come out strongly against what it calls the Prisons Department’s practice of “secretive” executions, in the latest case informing a family of the execution of their son at the last minute. 

Its executive director Shamini Darshni said that the family of convict P. Gunasegar (pic), 35, was only informed on Wednesday that they should visit him for the last time as he would be executed "soon".

In the letter by the Taiping Prison’s Department, the family was also advised to discuss arrangements to claim Gunasegar’s body for his funeral.

"The mother, Nagarani Sandasamy had visited Gunasegar last week, and both were unaware that the 34-year-old was scheduled to hang just a week later,” Shamini said.

She added though no date was given, convicts were usually executed on Fridays after morning prayers.

She told The Star that it was common for families not to be given a date, calling the practice "heartless".

Gunasegar was on death row for his role in the murder of B. Venukumar, then 24, on April 4, 2005.

Amnesty International stated its concern on Malaysia’s practice of “secretive” executions, saying transparency on the use of the death penalty was an essential safeguard in such cases, as it allowed for greater scrutiny and meaningful debate on the issue.

Shamini called on the authorities to stop of the execution and commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, saying that executing Gunasegar would be an enormous step backwards on human rights for Malaysia.

As discussions on abolishing the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia continue, the Malaysian government must immediately put in place a moratorium on all executions as a first step towards full abolition of the death penalty.”

In court documents sighted by The Star, Gunasegar  was charged, together with J. Ramesh and J. Sasivarnam, with murdering Venukumar at a playground in Taman Ria Raya, Sungai Petani, Kedah.

Though the trio claimed during the trial that they had been attacked by a group, which included Venukumar and only defended themselves, the High Court found them guilty in 2011.

The decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases regardless of the nature or circumstances of the crime, the guilt or innocence of the individual, or the method used to carry out the execution.- Star, 24/3/2016

Amnesty International pleads lifetime jail instead of gallows for Taiping convict

Wednesday March 23, 2016

11:09 PM GMT+8

Amnesty International Malaysia has condemned the impending ‘last minute’ execution of Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu scheduled for March 25, 2016. — File pic

KUALA LUMPUR, March 23 — Amnesty International Malaysia condemned today the “last minute” execution of Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu scheduled for this Friday, calling it a violation of human rights.

The human rights watchdog claimed that the prisoner’s family was notified only this week that he is to be hanged on Friday and was unaware of it a week ago, which was a violation of human rights.

“The mother, Nagarani Sandasamy, had visited Gunasegar last week, and both were unaware that the 34-year-old was scheduled to hang just a week later,” the body’s executive director Shamini Darshini said in a statement today.

The group also alleged that the “secretive” execution was not in line with international standards on the use of the death penalty and pleaded with Putrajaya to commute the execution.

“We call upon the Malaysian government to immediately halt all plans to execute Gunasegar, and to commute existing death sentences to life imprisonment.

“As discussions on abolishing the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia continue, the Malaysian government must immediately put in place a moratorium on all executions as a first step towards full abolition of the death penalty,” Shamini added.

The group also reiterated its stand that it was against the mandatory death penalty as it “violates the right to life and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.”

Gunasegar was sentenced in 2011 alongside two others including his brother for murdering a 25-year old man in 2005.- Malay Mail

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/amnesty-international-pleads-lifetime-jail-instead-of-gallows-for-taiping-c#sthash.mWFq5mZn.dpuf

More Malaysians want end to mandatory death penalty, online poll shows (Malay Mail)

More Malaysians want end to mandatory death penalty, online poll shows

By Ida Lim

Thursday February 18, 2016
12:05 PM GMT+8

UPDATED:
February 18, 2016
01:17 PM GMT+8

Over half of Malaysians surveyed in an online poll want the government to scrap the mandatory death sentence. — file picture

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 18 — Over half of Malaysians surveyed in an online poll want the government to scrap the mandatory death sentence that leaves judges with no discretion to hand down lighter punishments.

Conducted by Barisan Nasional (BN) component party Gerakan, the online poll results showed 838 online respondents were in favour of abolishing the mandatory death sentence while 685 respondents disagreed with judges being given the discretion to decide sentences, the party’s Youth wing leader Chai Ko Thing told a news conference today.

“As you can see from the results of votes garnered, the ratio is those who agreed are 55 per cent and those who disagreed is 45 per cent,” the Gerakan Youth Legal Bureau chief said.

The survey results were collected from 1,523 anonymous Internet users over a three-week period from January 22 and February 15 through Gerakan’s online poll site bettermalaysiapoll.org.

The survey posed just one question: “In your opinion, should Malaysia abolish the mandatory death penalty?” and the results were based on the number of “Yes” or “No” clicks obtained.

According to Chai, the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia applies to various crimes such as murder, firearm possession, kidnapping with ransom, waging war against the King and drug offences.

However, he said the government has currently shown its intention to remove the mandatory death penalty for drug-related offences, a move he said is backed by public sentiments based on the poll results.

He said Gerakan had, in 2013, initiated a petition titled “No to death penalty”, adding however the scrapping of mandatory death sentences may be a good starting point and middle path.

“So the party’s stand on this issue is we are going for total abolishment of death sentence, but as a start from the result of this poll — it seems to be divided, maybe to remove mandatory, then we work towards total abolishment of death sentence,” he said.

Chai said Gerakan will present the poll’s findings to de facto law minister Nancy Shukri who is expected to present legal amendments to scrap the mandatory death sentence in Parliament next month.

Nancy had in a written parliamentary statement last November 3 said there are currently 1,022 convicted inmates awaiting execution pending their appeals against the court’s decision, adding that there were 33 executed during the 1998-Oct 2015 period while 127 others received lighter sentences or clemency due to their pleas to the State Pardons Board.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali had last November also said that he wished the courts had discretion on sending convicts to the gallows or otherwise.

Chai said the online #BetterMalaysia poll — which only allows one vote from each device — was created as a platform for the public to express their opinions on topical issues.

The simplified nature of the ongoing polls that does not ask for any details of the respondents is also to cater to Internet-savvy Malaysians especially the youths, Chai said.

He said the third question is now open for voting until March 8, declaring it as: “Does increasing traffic fines serve as an appropriate measure to change the driving attitude of road users and reduce traffic offences?” - Malay Mail, 18/2/2016

See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/more-malaysians-want-end-to-mandatory-death-penalty-online-poll-shows#sthash.4RQVk4UE.dpuf

SHAHRUL IZANI SUPARMAN Court of Appeal Judgment - An Opinion? Fault of the Lawyer?

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 SHAHRUL IZANI SUPARMAN ... PERAYU DAN PENDAKWA RAYA ... RESPONDEN [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 [1] Perayu telah dipertuduhkan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952, iaitu mengedar dadah berbahaya jenis Cannabis seberat 622 gram. Perayu telah didapati bersalah dan dijatuhkan hukuman mati mandatori. [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. (b) Perayu tidak memasang lampu motorsikal serta mencurigakan, kemudiannya telah membuat pusingan "U". (c) Perayu telah melarikan diri apabila disekat oleh motokar yang dinaiki oleh SP6. Perayu melarikan diri sehingga ke selekoh, selepas pergelutan Perayu berjaya ditangkap. (d) Dari bakul motorsikal BDP 8358 tersebut, diperolehi dua beg plastik merah, tiap satu berisi satu ketulan mampat dedaun kering yang disyaki Cannabis. (e) SP5 tuan punya motorsikal tersebut tidak meninggalkan apa-apa barang di dalam bakul motorsikal tersebut. (f) Perayu ditangkap oleh pihak polis lebih kurang pukul 10.15 malam, bererti motorsikal tersebut berada di bawah kawalan beliau lebih kurang 2 jam sebelum tangkapan. 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

“Knowing your son will die is agonising, but not knowing when is torturous,” -Sapenah Nawawi , 58, the mother of Shahrul Izani(on death row)

19 year old, Malaysian  Shahrul Izani, arrested in 2003 - now, on death row awaiting execution.He is turning 32 on March 9, 2016. 
 

“Knowing your son will die is agonising, but not knowing when is torturous,” -Sapenah Nawawi , 58, the mother of Shahrul Izani

Both the Malaysian Attorney General and the de facto Minister of Justice did commit to the abolition of the mandatory death penalty - and said that required amendments will be tabled in March 2016, and this is March 2016. In the meantime, there must be a moratorium on all executions.. Note also that 'For 13 years, Shahrul has maintained his innocence'

"The minister in the Prime Minister’s Department said today she hopes to take her proposal to amend the Penal Code and abolish the mandatory death sentence to the Dewan Rakyat as early as March next year." - see End of Malaysia’s mandatory death sentence on the horizon(Malay Mail, 17/11/2015)

Attorney-General Tan Sri Apandi Ali also did commit to propose to the Cabinet that the mandatory death penalty be scrapped (Malaysian Insider, 13/11/2015). Appandi Ali, who is also the Public Prosecutor, said that ‘…mandatory death sentences were a "paradox", as it robbed judges of their discretion to impose sentences on convicted criminals….’ - see MADPET Glad That Malaysia will abolish the Mandatory Death Penalty in 2016

See also:-

Government should look into fully abolishing death penalty, says Suhakam and MADPET(Rakyat Post)

Happy birthday, Shahrul Izani

Khoo Ying Hooi

Published: 29 February 2016

Shahrul Izani Suparman is a death-row inmate, not knowing when he will face the gallows.

He was arrested for possession of 622 grammes of cannabis in 2003, when he was only 19 years old. After spending more than six years in detention awaiting trial, Shahrul was convicted by the Shah Alam High Court of drug trafficking, an offence that carries the mandatory death sentence, in December 2009.

Then, the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed his appeal on the same day on October 12, 2011. Again, on June 26, 2012 the Federal Court heard and dismissed his appeal.

Two years later in 2014, Shahrul applied for clemency before the Pardons Board of Selangor state. That meant he had now exhausted all his appeals, and could be executed at any time.

I first came across Shahrul’s case through Amnesty International Malaysia (AI). Shahrul’s plight was one of three death-row cases that AI were highlighting for the 2015 World Day Against the Death Penalty, which falls on October 10 annually. In my first encounter with the family of Shahrul in AI’s office, the persistence and courage of Shahrul’s mother, Sapenah Nawawi in defending her son touched my heart deeply.

I clearly remember how her tears started running down her face, whenever she spoke of her son. She believes strongly in her son and most importantly, she and the family have not given up on him.

For more than a decade, Sapenah has hardly missed any weekly trip between her home in Klang and the Sungai Buloh prison to visit Shahrul.

Thus far, Sapenah has approached various non-governmental organisations (NGOs), lawyers, and state authorities and also tried to seek a royal pardon for Shahrul.

Basically, they have exhausted every possible channel and money, to save him from the gallows.

Currently, Malaysia is one of 58 countries that still practice the death penalty, compared with the 140 countries which have abolished it.

Should the death penalty be abolished? Very often, supporters of the death penalty argue that the death penalty could deter others from committing a particular crime.

But, they are wrong. More importantly there is no evidence to back up such an argument.

The death penalty is wrong because by sentencing someone to death, you are basically denying his or her right to life.

If we look at this from the lens of Shahrul and family, the emotional cost to the families of victims and the convicted can’t be measured.

Imagine that’s what Shahrul Izani has to go through every day, not knowing when will be his last breath as he could be hanged any day now.

Imagine what the family of Shahrul has to go through, not knowing when will be the last day of them seeing their loved one.

Listening to Sapenah and the family’s stories, of how they have to carry on their lives in such an emotionally-draining environment is totally beyond what I could possibly imagine. Years of frustration did not in any way stop them from trying to release Shahrul from the gallows.

It has been 13 years since Shahrul had a decent birthday. He is turning 32 on March 9.

For 13 years, Shahrul has maintained his innocence. According to Sapenah, Shahrul himself has done a great number of researches to free himself from the death sentence.

In conjunction with this, currently AI has launced a 'Wish #ShahrulIzani Happy Birthday" campaign to encourage Malaysians to bring him some cheer and support. As we could see from the AI Malaysia website, all of us could contribute in giving him hope and some joy.

As highlighted in AI's statement and I quote, “The aim of this campaign is to give a young man hope, especially when hope, to him, is in short supply. For a man who is forced to listen to a fellow death row inmate struggle to breathe his last when hanging from a rope, we hope that this action would bring him some small comfort.”

“We hope that the birthday greetings will encourage Shahrul and his family and show them that we have not forgotten him and will continue to stand with him. On another level, AI Malaysia also hopes that this campaign will drive home the point that the death penalty solves no crime, nor will it deter drugs from the market or prevent other crimes from happening.”

Here in Malaysia, we practice mandatory death penalty that leaves judges with no discretion to decide any other sentences. However there was some progress last year when Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said he wished the courts had some discretion over the decision to send convicts to the gallows or otherwise, depending on the crimes that he or she has committed.

The move was also concurred by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri.

Realistically, this campaign will not be able to take away their pain, but at least it could send out some support to Shahrul and his family to continue the advocacy and hope.

With this, I would like to wish Shahrul Izani, happy birthday and don’t give up hope. – February 29, 2016.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer, organisation or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

 

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianoutsider.com/opinion/khoo-ying-hooi/article/happy-birthday-shahrul-izani#sthash.x6ejSwrD.dpuf

22 February 2016

Mum vows to fight on for son facing the gallows

KLANG: Death-row inmate Shahrul Izani Suparman, 32, is on tenterhooks, not knowing when he will face the gallows.

But his mother, Sapenah Nawawi (pic), 58, has not given up hope of trying to get the various parties to commute the death sentence.

She has been sending pleas to the pardons board, the Attorney-General, the King and even the Sultan of Selangor’s imam.

“Knowing your son will die is agonising, but not knowing when is torturous,” she said, adding that a date for the death sentence has yet to be fixed.

Sapenah said she had asked the prison authorities but has yet to receive any answer.

In 2003, Shahrul Izani, then 19, was arrested during a routine roadblock after being found in possession of 622gm of cannabis.

In December 2009, he was convicted by the Shah Alam High Court for drug trafficking, an offence that carries the mandatory death penalty.

His eldest brother Soffhian Soffree, 36, said Shahrul was an avid reader and always kept tabs on news of other prisoners who got pardoned.

“Every time we visited Shahrul, he would ask the same question: ‘Did they reply?’,” he said, adding that the lack of answers left the family constantly on edge.

Having exhausted his appeals before the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, Shahrul’s only chance to escape the noose is by way of a pardon.

The family has approached Amnesty International Malaysia for aid to campaign for Shahrul Izani’s cause.

Amnesty International is collecting signatures to appeal to the Selangor state pardons board, urging it to commute the death sentence.

Amnesty executive director Shamini Darshni said Malaysia was one of 58 countries to still practise the death sentence and questioned its effectiveness as a deterrent against drug trafficking.

According to 2014 statistics, 70% of the 992 people on death row in Malaysia were convicted for drug trafficking. - Star Online, 21/3/2016

Amnesty wants moratorium on death penalty(24/2/2016)

Amnesty wants moratorium on death penalty

BY MELATI A. JALIL

Published: 24 February 2016 6:33 PM

Amnesty International Malaysia executive director Shamini Darshni says Putrajaya should consider imposing a moratorium for those on death row while deliberating on plans to abolish the death penalty. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Najjua Zulkefli, February 24, 2016. 

 

Human rights group Amnesty International Malaysia, in welcoming Putrajaya's plan to push for the abolishing of death penalty, has urged for a moratorium for those currently on death row.

 

Its executive director Shamini Darshni said the announcements by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali and de facto Law Minister Nancy Shukri in November, were positive and most welcome.
 

Apandi had said he plans to propose to the Cabinet that the mandatory death penalty be scrapped while Nancy said Putrajaya plans to table a bill in March next year to abolish the mandatory death penalty in drug-related offences.

“But what is missing is that in the mean time, since the announcement was made, there is no moratorium, so people are still being sentenced to death by the courts. “We are urging the Malaysian government to seriously impose a moratorium on the use of death penalty as well as execution,” she said, when presenting The Amnesty International Report (AIR) 2015/16 – The State of the World's Human Rights in Petaling Jaya today.

She said Malaysia imposed death penalty for murder, drug-trafficking, the use of firearms as well as kidnapping in certain circumstances.

Last November, Nancy had said the plan to abolish the mandatory death penalty in drug-related offences would allow judges to use their discretion to choose between sentencing a person to jail and the gallows in non-criminal cases, such as drug-related offences.

Apandi in an interview with The Malaysian Insider had said he would propose to the Cabinet that the mandatory death penalty be scrapped.

Meanwhile, on the report which was released today, Shamini said there were six areas of concern in Malaysia's human rights record – freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, arbitrary arrests and detentions, police and security forces, refugees and migrants on death penalty.

“Last year, we saw how repressive and outdated legislation were being used to clamp down on basic rights.

“In the first few months of 2016, we are seeing the same pattern persist, much to the detriment of basic freedoms,” Shamini said.

Earlier, Amnesty International released a report on the State of the World's Human Rights where it said Malaysia has “intensified” its crackdown on freedom of expression and other civil and political rights last year.

The report for 2015/2016 said this was evidence from the use of the Sedition Act to silence government critics. – February 24, 2016. - Malaysian Insider

 

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/amnesty-wants-moratorium-on-death-penalty#sthash.Cy3dEhkW.dpuf

See earlier posts

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)

 

 

 

MADPET calls on the ruler of the State of Selangor to commute the Death Sentence of Azilah Hadri

Media Statement – 16/1/2016

MADPET calls on the ruler of the State of Selangor to commute the Death Sentence of Azilah Hadri

 

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) prays that the sentence of death row Azilah Hadri, who was convicted for the murder of Altantuya Shaaribu be commuted. 

It was recently reported that former special action force officer Azilah Hadri has filed a petition to the Selangor Sultan, being the ruler of the State of Selangor, seeking a royal pardon over his conviction for murder the Mongolian translator (Star, 15/1/2016). In Malaysia, conviction for murder carries the mandatory death penalty.

Article 42(1) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution provides that: ‘The Yang di-Pertuan Agong has power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites in respect of all offences which have been tried by court-martial and all offences committed in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya; and the Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri of a State has power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites in respect of all other offences committed in his State.

In a reply to a Parliamentary question by Member of Parliament Kulasegaran (DAP Ipoh), dated 3/11/2015,  it was disclosed that since 1998 until 6/10/2015, 127 death row prisoners have had their sentence commuted. As of 6/10/2015, there still remain about 1,022 persons on death row.

In Thailand, Royal Pardon has resulted in about 90 percent or more persons sentenced to death having their sentence commuted to imprisonment.

On 18/12/2014, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a Resolution to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. This is the fifth time this resolution has been tabled since the first in 2007. 117 member states voted in favour of the 2014 resolution, indicating the continuing growing global support for the abolition of the death penalty.

As such, taking also into consideration the various arguments for the abolition of the death penalty including that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable, MADPET calls upon the HRH the Sultan of Selangor to exercise his power to commute the death sentence faced by  Azilah Hadri into one of imprisonment.

MADPET reiterates its call on Malaysia to abolish the death penalty.

MADPET also calls for a moratorium on all executions pending abolition.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

See related post, that also carries the Star Report referred to in the statement:-

MADPET says commute sentence of Azilah, person convicted for Altantuya's murder

MADPET says commute sentence of Azilah, person convicted for Altantuya's murder

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture(MADPET) calls for the death sentence  of Azilah Hadri to be commuted to a prison sentence.

This is consistent with the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, and also MADPET's position.

Friday, 15 January 2016 | MYT 12:15 PM

Azilah seeks royal pardon over Altantuya murder conviction

by m. mageswari

KUALA LUMPUR: Former special action force officer Azilah Hadri (pic) is seeking a royal pardon over his conviction for murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Azilah filed his petition for the consideration of the Selangor Sultan, his lawyer Datuk Hazman Ahmad confirmed to The Star.

Hazman said a copy of the petition had been handed to the Ruler's secretary on Friday morning.

He said a copy would also be handed to the Attorney-General and Selangor Mentri Besar.

"It will be heard by the Selangor pardon’s board chaired by the Selangor Sultan," he added. - Star Online, 15/1/2015