MORE PICS & Video – Day 27 Altantuya Murder Trial; Judge to decide on Admissibility of Sirul’s Remark on Crime Scene; Najib Again Deny Involvement
UPDATE: Day 28 Trial – Aug 01 2007
More PICS loading
1. Submissions on whether two statements by Sirul should be excluded
2. Another dent in evidence
R. Surenthira Kumar and Maria J. Dass, from SUN
SHAH ALAM (Aug 1, 2007): The High Court here will tomorrow hear submissions on whether two statements made by murder accused Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar to ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin should be excluded as evidence. Judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin said both parties can submit on whether there is a need for a trial within a trial for the purpose of exclusion of the statements only. Sirul Azhar's counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin had objected to the statement that Sirul Azhar had allegedly pointed to a black jacket in his cupboard which contained jewellery belonging to Altantuya.
He said: "We are against the statement 'I kept the jewellery in my jacket' and his alleged conduct of nodding and pointing with his fingers at the jacket (as depicted in police photographs) while saying '... these are her items ...'."
Kamarul: (ABOVE) I object to the statement "... these are her items ..." and the conduct of nodding and pointing with his fingers at the jacket. We would also ask for a trial within a trial to be held to enable this court to properly rule on the question of discretion to exclude. In the earlier instance, I was under the impression that the question of trial within a trial with regard to (Chief Insp Azilah Hadri's counsel) Hazman Ahmad's objection (on Azilah leading the police to the crime scene) will be postponed until evidence is produced to the crime scene and remains found at the crime scene. Mohd Zaki: I postponed Hazman's request earlier. (But) In this case the information is in consequence of the earlier information. Tun Abdul Majid objected to having a trial within a trial but Mohd Zaki said he would rule on this before cross-examination. Earlier, Zulkarnain had testified that Sirul Azhar had told him "I can show you the jewellery belonging to the woman whom I shot in the jungle ... I am keeping it in my home in Kota Damansara."
DPP Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah(ABOVE) agreed that "we should delete this part 'whom I shot in the jungle'... that is confession." Kamarul: We object on the basis that it was involuntarily made. There is a part of the information that is adduced. By deleting the part, we are left with 'I can show you the jewellery of the woman I shot in the jungle which I am keeping in my house in Kota Damansara'. It is our contention that only the part which relates distinctly to the discovery of the fact is admissible. It is our argument that the phrase ' .. which I am keeping ...' does not lead to the discovery. The basis of our objection is to admit only the part that relates distinctly, not one word more. Tun Abdul Majid: The prosecution contends that the words '.... whom I shot ...' be disregarded. '... which I am keeping ...' should be admissible. If your Your Lord requires a full argument, we can do so tomorrow. Mohd Zaki then asked him whether this was the last part of his examination-in-chief, to which Tun Abdul Majid replied that there were other statements made in the house too.
Tun Abdul Majid asked the judge whether they should complete the testimony first, "otherwise there will be another round of objection". Kamarul persisted that the statement should delete the phrase "which I am keeping". Mohd Zaki then took a 20-minute break to read his notes. When he returned, he decided that the statement that "I can show you the jewellery (items) belonging to the woman whom I shot in the jungle ... which I am keeping in my home in Kota Damansara" was admissible.
2 Another dent in evidence
SHAH ALAM (Aug 1, 2007): The prosecution in the Altantuya Shaariibuu suffered yet another setback when the court today ruled as inadmissible the statement uttered by murder accused Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar to the police in the crime scene. Judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin said the statement, "this is where the Mongolian woman was blown up", does not amount to 'conduct' under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. He made the oral decision when the trial resumed today after a one-day break yesterday. He earlier reviewed the submissions made by the prosecution and defence. Mohd Zaki said the prosecution submitted that the 'statement' made by Sirul Azhar did not come under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. "I find none, in the illustration of Section 8 (2) of the Evidence Act, to be an example of category of 'conduct' that fits with the circumstances in this case. "I am also unable to find anything in the Indian and local cases, particularly on the facts in this case, where the evidence adduced is undisputed." He said the prosecution sought to admit a 'statement' made by Sirul Azhar, in pointing out a spot as the alleged scene of crime, where the woman was allegedly blown up. Mohd Zaki said under Section 8's explanation number one, the word 'conduct' does not include statement unless such statement is accompanied by acts other than statement.
"At this stage, having heard the submission and read all cases which admitted evidence of conduct, such admission are of evidence conduct simpliciter," he added. After a brief recess, the trial resumed with DPP Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah continuing with the examination-in-chief of ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, from the Serious Crime Division (D9) of the
Sirul Azhar's lawyer Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin raised the issue about the keys in the possession of Zulkarnain which were given to him by Chief Insp Koh Fei Cheow when they went to his client's flats. Kamarul said the Special Action Unit (UTK) commander had, in his testimony, said the set of keys was not one that was handed to him by Sirul Azhar when he went to bring him back from
= = == == = == = == = ==
Prosecution fails to adduce evidence
This is the third time the prosecution has failed to adduce statements made by Cpl Sirul to the police relating to the crime as evidence in the high-profile case. On July 26, it failed to get the court to admit Sirul Azhar's information to the police disclosing the location where Altantuya was murdered.
Mohd Zaki expunged the information adduced through Chief Insp Kamaroszaman Othman after ruling that it was a statement and not within the ambit of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The court on July 10 also threw out Sirul Azhar's alleged confession to the crime.
What happened today (Day 28)
* Judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ruled as inadmissible Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar's statement to police when he led them to the crime scene.
* Prosecution witness ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin continues his testimony after the ruling. He will continue with cross-examination today (Thursday).
= = == = = = == = == = == = = =
Sirul Kept Altantuya's Jewellery In His Black Jacket - Witness
SHAH ALAM, Aug 1 (Bernama) -- Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar, second accused in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial, led police to the discovery of the Mongolian woman's jewellery which he kept in his black jacket at his house in Kota Damansara, the High Court heard today. ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, 34, an officer with the D9 serious crime division of the
He then took out a wrist watch, a ring and a pair of earrings from his jacket pocket, he said. Pointing to the items, Sirul said: "These are her things." Zulkarnain said Sirul made the revelation when he and C/Insp Koh Fei Cheow interviewed him on Nov 7. "After Sirul disclosed the information, I lodged a police report in my office at ," he said during examination-in-chief by lead prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah on the 28th day of the trial.
ABOVE: The personal belongings of Altantuya recovered from the jacket
= = == = == = =
Bomb Unit Called To Check Sirul Azhar's House
SHAH ALAM, Aug 1 (Bernama) -- The High Court here was today told that a team from the Police's Bomb Disposal Unit (BDU) was asked to make checks at Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar's house following certain revelations made by the second accused in the Mongolian part-time model Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial. The prosecution's 23rd witness, ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, who continued with his testimony today, Day 28 of the trial, said that he had contacted the unit for help to check Sirul's house following information gathered from Sirul Azhar during his interview with the latter at his office (Zulkarnain's) office on Nov 7.
Zulkarnain, 34, from the
Political analyst Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, 47, is charged with abetting them.
= = == = == = =failed for the third time to adduce statements made by Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar to the police relating to the crime as evidence in the high-profile case. This time, the High Court rejected Sirul Azhar's statement made to the police team when he was brought to the crime scene in Puncak Alam on Nov 6 last year, disclosing where the body of the Mongolian woman was blasted. The prosecution's 23rd witness, ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin told the court last week that Sirul Azhar had gone to the crime scene in Puncak Alam with a police party and had uttered the words:
"Saya boleh tunjuk tempat perempuan itu diletupkan." (I can show where the woman was blasted) Counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamarudin, for Sirul Azhar, objected to the admissibility of the statement 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. Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin today ruled Sirul Azhar's statement inadmissible as it was not a conduct under section 8. Sirul Azhar, 36, and Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, 31, both of the Bukit Aman Special Action Force, are charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, in Mukim Bukit Raja between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 last year while political analyst Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, 47, is accused of abetting them. In rejecting the statement, Mohd Zaki said: "The DPP submitted that the statement made by the second accused was not under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Rightly so, the police had discovered the crime scene. "In this case, the statement by the accused person was accompanied by his act of pointing to the crime scene.
The evidence adduced was undisputed that the second accused said and pointed to the crime scene when the police took him to the crime scene. "Under section 8, the word conduct does not include statement unless statement is accompanied by acts other than statement. At this stage, having heard the submissions and read all cases which admitted evidence of conduct, such admission are of evidence conduct simpliciter. "I find nothing in the illustrations of section 8 to be an example of the category of conduct that fits with the circumstances of this case. "On the facts of the case today,
I'm not prepared to consider the statement as conduct under section 8 and therefore the statement is inadmissible." On July 26, the prosecution failed to get the court to admit Sirul Azhar's information to the police disclosing the location where Altantuya was murdered. Mohd Zaki expunged the information adduced through Chief Insp Kamaroszaman Othman after ruling that it was a statement and not within the ambit of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The court on July 10 also threw out Sirul Azhar's alleged confession to the crime.
= == = ==
Court Rules Sirul Azhar's Testimony As Inadmissible
SHAH ALAM, August 1 (Bernama) -- The Shah Alam High Court Wednesday ruled as inadmissible corporal Sirul Azhar Umar's statement disclosing the spot where Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu was blasted
= = == =
=shocking - high & dry no petrol after 10 pm
Dealers Endorse Move To Close Petrol Stations At
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 1 (Bernama) -- Petrol station owners attending the annual general delegates conference of the Petrol Dealers Association of Malaysia (PDAM) here today, endorsed a resolution for members to operate their stations for only 15 hours a day, from 7am to 10pm. PDAM deputy president Datuk Zulkifli Mokti, however, said a date had yet to be set for its implementation.
"We hope to be able to make a decision on the date soon, after holding negotiations with the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry," he told reporters when met after the conference. He said the step was taken in the interests of members who were now facing escalating costs apart from security risks in operating round-the-clock.
Zulkifli said the members were concerned about the safety of workers at petrol stations because robberies at them often occurred at night. The electricity tariff increase from 0.288 sen a unit to 0.32 sen a unit had also adversely affected their margins, he said, adding that it was further compounded by banks making them shoulder the commission for purchases using credit cards. It became worse when fuel prices rose and as such the dealers agreed that this cost aspect should be passed on to consumers, he said.
Asked about the ramifications of doing that, Zulkifli said: "Initially it will come as a shock, but consumers must understand the burden faced by petrol station operators and furthermore in other sectors, it is the norm for consumers to pay the charges.
On Alang Zari Ishak being dismissed as the PDAM's president at the meeting today, he said the decision was taken after 51 of 65 members voted for his removal for allegedly failing to champion the association's interests. Zulkifli added that the meeting also agreed that the self-service concept be extended nationwide.
In an immediate response to the development, the Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations (Fomca) and the Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association voiced their objection to the move to have petrol stations operating for only 15 hours a day. In statements faxed to Bernama, the two associations described the move as tantamount to threatening the government and urged PDAM to withdraw its decision.
= = = == = = = below.....Altantuya Murder Trial – Day 27 – Jul 30 07,
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.
= = == = == =
* 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;
= = == = == =What happened today – Day 27
* 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, , Straits Times,
involvement in a high-profile murder case and accused the country's
opposition of trying to exploit it. In an interview published in
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
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
= = == =and from Bernama
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.
= = == = ==
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 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 on Oct 19 and on Oct 20 last year while Abdul Razak is accused of abetting them.
= = == = = =Watch Video Clip (57 sec) - Day 27 Trial - Jul 30 07
= = = == = == = = == =