Monday, July 30, 2007

MORE PICS & Video – BN Cracks showing – PPP Denies Ultimatum for 60s Seats held; Najib: Allocation - BN Spirit & Principle; UMNO demands Retraction

UPDATE- Altantuya Murder TrialDay 27 – Jul 30 07, more details in new post
and Najib's Denial again of Involvement in S'pore Interview (see below)

ABOVE & BELOW: Malaysiakini has the Day 27 Trial on Jul 30 07 out at 3.51 pm on the same day. Details H E R E by subscription
= = == = == = = == = ==

1ABOVE: The three accused arriving in Court on Day 27 Trial; BELOW: The luggage of evidence being wheeled in

Court to decide admissibility of Sirul's remark

R. Surenthira Kumar, from SUN
SHAH ALAM (July 30, 2007): The court hearing the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial will decide on Wednesday (Aug 1) whether to admit or disallow the statement purportedly uttered by Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar to the police, when he led them to the crime scene. The crux of the issue is whether Sirul's statement, "I can show the place where the woman was blown up", coupled with his conduct of pointing to the spot, and is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The question before the court is also whether Sirul's statement and his subsequent conduct of pointing to the spot were separate, unconnected things or were part of one.
Lawyers for both the defence and the prosecution submitted at length on the issue this morning before the proceedings were adjourned to Wednesday.

The submissions of both parties centred around the following:
* Section 8 (Evidence Act) - on motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct; and
* Section 27 (Evidence Act) - on how much information received from accused may be proved.

Sirul's lawyer, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin (ABOVE), started his submission around whether the statement and the subsequent act of his client were two separate things, or one. He said based on the testimony of ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, it was alleged that Sirul had uttered certain sentences relating to the murder of the Mongolian woman to the police when he was taken to the crime scene.

"The question is whether the statement, "I can show the place where the woman was blown up", coupled with his conduct of pointing to the spot, is admissible under Section 8," he said.
Kamarul Hisham said at first glance the word "conduct" does not include a "statement". It (Section 8) bars any conduct that amounts to a statement, and it does not include statement," he added.

Kamarul Hisham, who argued they were two separate things - words spoken, and act done - said although this case deals with the old Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), it does not matter as the word statement is still available in the current Section 113 of the CPC.
"In the old Section 113 anything said to the police is barred. Under the new Section 113, a statement made is barred unless there was caution and was not induced," added Kamarul Hisham.
He went on to quote PP v Kanapathy Kupusamy (2001) where there was an act by the accused person after interrogation, of taking the police to premises. He brought the police to the house and put his hands under the mattress showing drugs. He said nothing.
Kamarul Hisham said the argument by the defence lawyer in the case was that the conduct of accused amounts to an answer to a question during interrogation, thus it was a cautioned statement under Section 113.
He said however, due to lack of caution, it was inadmissible.

Kamarul Hisham said the court in that instance held that it was not an answer to a question but a conduct simpliciter meaning it stands alone, and was hence admissible under Section 8.

"We propose the inextricably woven test and if the act and statement so closely connected, this amounts to statement and therefore caught by Section 113 of the CPC, or barred by Section 8 explanation 1 of the Evidence Act," said Kamarul Hisham. He said a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is subject to raison d’etre of discovery. He said the same safeguard is applicable and the accused can still be called during a trial-within-a-trial to determine that issue.

Next to submit was Abdul Razak Baginda's lawyer Wong Kian Kheong (ABOVE) who said the right to remain silent includes a suspect's right not to show anything that might implicate him, if he had been cautioned about the right. Wong also referred to a case which limited itself to the conduct of a suspect without any statement from him. He said in another case which involves conduct and statement, the doctrine of separation does not apply.
"If it is used, it will contradict explanation 1 of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. " said Wong. He said ASP Zulkarnain's testimony clearly showed there was a statement and conduct and therefore Section 113 of the CPC comes into force.

Lawyer Hazman Ahmad did not submit on the matter but said he adopted Kamarul Hisham and Wong's submission.

Meanwhile, Deputy Public Prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah (ABOVE) said it is the prosecution's contention that the statement accompanying the act must be admitted. "In our case, the act of pointing was at the scene where the woman was exploded, coupled with the accompanying statement," he added.

Tun Abdul Majid said it was argued by the defence that such statement should not be admitted under Section 8, and by seeking to do so, they are going through the back door, disregarding Section 113 of the CPC and Section 27 of the Evidence Act. "We argue that Section 8 should also be treated as an exception, similar to Section 27. Otherwise, Section 8 would not have been worded in such manner.
"Parliament does not enact a law in vain. The Evidence Act has so many provisions that can either be read together or alone," he added.
Referring to several cases, Tun Abdul Majid said at this point, the prosecution does not think nor venture to say that Section 113 of the CPC has repealed the Evidence Act.

"I cannot go under Section 27 anymore for the second accused as the place has been discovered. "But Section 8 should be treated as an exception. It should go hand in hand with Section 27," argued Tun Abdul Majid.
On Wong's points, Tun Abdul Majid said it was his contention that conduct should accompany statement, otherwise the conduct would not have had any meaning at all. "It is my submission that the statement made by second accused at the same time as pointing out the place should be admitted under Section 8(2) on the authority of the Indian cases," he added. Tun Abdul Majid urged the court to rule that statement made by Sirul Azhar coupled with the act of pointing is to be admitted under Section 8.
Mohd Zaki will deliver his decision tomorrow (Wednesday 1st Aug 07); as case postponed.

= = == = == = What happened today – Day 27
* Lawyers for both the defence and the prosecution submitted on whether the statement purportedly uttered by Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar to the police when he led them to the crime scene should be admitted or disallowed;

* Judge Mohd Zaki will deliver his decision on Wednesday.

= = == = == = And Najib’s Denial of Involvement in S’pore Interview
Malaysian deputy PM denies link to Mongolian murder case

Monday July 30, 12:10 PM, Straits Times, Singapore Via AFP
SINGAPORE (AFP) - Malaysia's deputy prime minister has denied any
involvement in a high-profile murder case
and accused the country's
opposition of trying to exploit it. In an interview published in Singapore's The Straits Times on Monday, Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak was asked about the case involving his close associate, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, 47. The analyst is on trial charged with abetting the murder in October last year of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu, 28. "The fact remains that it is purely a private issue, nothing to do with me," the deputy prime minister told The Straits Times, repeating previous denials he has made.

He said Malaysia's opposition "are so desperate to link whatever they can" but that the public would not believe it. Two police officers from the Special Action Force (UTK), whose duties include guarding Malaysia's prime minister and Najib, are charged with killing Altantuya.
Prosecutors allege Abdul Razak ordered police to kill his former lover after

she harassed him for money. The trial, which entered its seventh week on Monday, is seen by observers as a test of Malaysia's judicial and political integrity. In earlier testimony, Burmaa Oyunchimeg, the victim's cousin, testified she had seen a picture of Altantuya having a meal with Abdul Razak and a "Malaysian government official" as well as others. Burmaa did not identify the official as the deputy prime minister but said Altantuya told her his name was "Najib Razak." Following the testimony,

Tian Chua, information chief with the opposition Keadilan, or People's Justice Party, posted on the Internet a fake photograph depicting Najib with Altantuya. "It is aimed to push Najib to explain his link in the case," Tian said. In the Straits Times interview, Najib said Tian had resorted to "underhand politics. I believe in politics you have to stand on some principles." The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, which governs the Internet, has said it was probing the photo. A police detective testified recently at the trial that only bones remained after Altantuya was shot dead and "blasted" in a jungle area southwest of the capital Kuala Lumpur.
= = == =and from Bernama

July 30, 2007 16:33 PM
Court To Decide Admissibilty Of Sirul Azhar's Testimony

SHAH ALAM, July 30 (Bernama) -- The High Court here will decide on Wednesday whether corporal Sirul Azhar Umar's testimony on the disclosure of the location where Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu was blasted is admissible as a relevant fact in the trial. Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yassin deferred decision after hearing submissions from all the parties concerned Monday. The issue before the court is whether Sirul Azhar's statement, in which he allegedly said that he could show where Altantuya's body was blasted, accompanied with his conduct in showing the place to the police, can be admitted under section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950. Last Thursday, Sirul Azhar's counsel, Kamarul Hisham Kamarudin, objected to the evidence of the prosecution's 23rd witness, ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, relating to Sirul Azhar's disclosure of the location where Altantuya's body was blasted.

Zulkarnain had told the court that Sirul Azhar had gone with a police team to the crime scene in Puncak Alam and allegedly uttered the words: "Saya boleh tunjuk tempat perempuan itu diletupkan."

(I can show the place where the woman was exploded.) Kamarul Hisham (ABOVE) had objected on the ground that the evidence was prejudicial and inadmissible but deputy public prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah said the evidence was admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act as it only revealed Sirul Azhar's conduct. Sirul Azhar, 36, and Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, 31, both of the Special Action Squad, are jointly charged with murdering Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu at Mukim Bukit Raja, Selangor, between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 last year. Political analyst Abdul Razak, 47, is charged with abetting them.

Kamarul Hisham submitted today that the word `conduct' in section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 did not include a statement made by an accused person.He said a statement, coupled with a conduct, made by an accused was caught under section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and could not be obtained by inducement, threat or promise. Counsel Wong Kian Kheong, for Abdul Razak, submitted that section 113 of the CPC had a wide application and included any statement coupled with a conduct made by an accused person. Tun Abdul Majid replied that the statement accompanying the act must be admitted under section 8, otherwise the conduct would not have any meaning at all.He said section 8 should be treated as an exception, otherwise it would not have been worded in such manner."The Parliament does not enact a law in vain. The Evidence Act has so many provisions that can either be read together or alone," he said.

The hearing continues on Wednesday.

= = == = ==July 30, 2007 15:35 PM

Altantuya Murder Trial Put Off Until Wednesday

SHAH ALAM, July 30 (Bernama) -- The Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial has been put off until Wednesday to make way for a 2004 part-heard murder case following a complaint by the counsel in that case. Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin, who only heard the case for half the day Monday, informed the prosecution and the defence that he had allowed the application by the counsel to try the part-heard case at 2pm and for the whole of Tuesday.

The case involving Vasutevan Batumalai was scheduled for hearing today and tomorrow but Mohd Zaki had previously decided to hear his other cases on Friday to concentrate on the Altantuya case from Monday to Thursday. The judge said K.A. Ramu, counsel for Vasutevan, had persistently asked him in a raised voice last Friday to give priority to his case because his client was sick and had been remanded since 2004.

The trial of C/Insp Azilah Hadri, 31, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 36, both of the Special Action Force, and political analyst Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, 47, had been going on since June 18. The two policemen are accused of murdering Altantuya, 28, at a location between Lots 12843 and 16735, Mukim Bukit Raja between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 last year while Abdul Razak is accused of abetting them.

= = == = = =Watch Video Clip (57 sec) - Day 27 Trial - Jul 30 07

= = = == = == = = == = =

= = == = == = == = = =end UPDATE
ABOVE & BELOW: MALAYSIAKINI early story on PPP Demands on the Seats Allocation; Details H E R E = == = == = = = =and now PPP Kayveas denies Ultimatium

PPP President Kayveas denies Ultimatum:

"I am very clear. I know when to speak my mind and mind my speech. I don’t simply make statement and give ultimatum. I think we are not in a position to give ultimatum to anybody. I must say it is just a struggle for PPP, which has been a very strong party; which has been in the opposition; close to forming a government in Perak; which has joined the BN in the early seventies, founder member and a very senior member in BN. It is the right of members and duty of the President to speak for them or speak on behalf of them.”

UMNO Leaders Condemn PPP Ultimatum

Vice-President Muhyiddin Yassin: Wrong to issue such ultimatum

VPAli Rustum: This ultimatum is irresponsible, Act of sabotage If PPP wants to leave I have no concern

VP Mat Taib: More appropriate to hold negotiations; Don’t play politics & issue threats

= = == STAR Umno VP asks Kayveas to retract his ultimatum

KUALA LUMPUR: Umno Vice-President Muhyiddin Yassin has told the Peoples' Progress Party (PPP) chief M. Kayveas to retract his ultimatum that the party be allowed to contest its seats or or it will quit the Barisan Nasional
= = == =

= = ==

Watch Video Clip (45 Sec) : PPP Kayveas Denial;

= = == = ==

= = == = == = = = =


Blogger Billy said...

Statements made by the various UMNO leaders signify one thing - PPP is irrelevant to them. So, Kayveas, for heaven's sake man, leave the coalition and walk out like a man rather than carrying on staying in the BN and whimpering like a stray dog. MCA, Gerakan and the rest are getting the crumps. PPP is getting the crumps of the crumps. Where is your pride and dignity?

10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kayves is just fishing for votes, just like Najid when he raised the claim that Malaysia is an islamic state. Power hungry politikos like these 2 bums should be blown apart with c4

11:05 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Get complete protection against viruses, worms and Trojan horse programs – CA Anti-Virus 2008! Click here for cheap hotels
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Multidimid. Make your own badge here.
Blogroll Me!

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Add to Google Add to Google