Di hadapan Yang Arif Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah
Parties as before except for Wong Chiang Kiat, Kailesh dan Wan Anuar
Pemerhati: Mark Trowell, Queen Council for the Law Asia, Commonwealth Lawyer’s Association and International Court of Justice
Jennifer Robinson for IBA.
Juru Bahasa: Kes dipanggil semula.
Karpal Singh: Before we proceed, this is what happen in the Federal Court, the application for stay and the application for revision. The Chief Justice directed the PMR to see us but he was having a dental appointment. The PMR will see us tomorrow.
We take Yang Arif to the Notis Usul, we’re asking for an order for stay until the final disposal of the appeal.
In the affidavit of Anwar Ibrahim. No doubt this court have the discretionary power to stay pending appeal. The court delivered judgment in this application on the 1st Dec. 2009. Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed on 10th Dec 2009. The RR is yet to be served to the appellant.
There is an application to strike out the charge.
Refer to Notice of Motion (quoted)
Refer at pg 545 case of Karpal Singh v PP [Tag 1] at para 4 “However, in the case of obvious abuses or other forms of materials defect, it cannot be said that the High Court does not possess the power to do the right and to undo wrong in the course of administration.
Case no. 2 at pg. 172 [Tag 2] Datuk Hj Wasli bin Mohd Said v PP
The 3rd case- PP v Lee Tin Bau at pg 394 referred.
Refer also to Ini Abong’s case.
In the point of those cases, in Enclosure 7, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim II affidavit, in this judgment the issue before Yang Arif is at pg.2
a) pertuduhan adalah berniat jahat dan penyalahgunaan mahkamah
b) ini konspirasi politik
c) wujud keterangan pakar yang menolak kejadian liwat tetapi kes tetap diteruskan kepada pemohon
The 2 medical reports referred – it is an abuse of process of the court.
At pg 9 of Yang Arif judgment – “yang perlu dibuktikan adalah perhubungan kemasukan dari laporan PUSRAWI tidak dapati ada kemasukan ke dubur pengadu.”
Ini adalah elemen penting untuk dibuktikan di bawah s.377B KK adalah kemasukan zakar ke dubur pengadu. This is the element under s.377B PC.
Refer to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim 18.
Yang Arif: I’ll decide the issue later. Now you are making an application for stay in my court.
Karpal Singh: I want to show there is merit in our application. In the medical report – PUSRAWI – 26.06.2008, Saiful went to PUSRAWI and the report is on the 28th. The doctor is not here today, the finding of the doctor “not notice any rectal bleed, no blood. Patient is alleged to introduction of plastic into the anus.”
Yang Arif: If I remember this matter was not argued before me.
Karpal Singh: It was there. The complainant went to be examined. Just to show that Saiful did not alleged to that he was sodomised. The 2nd report from Hospital Kuala Lumpur from 3 doctors that examined Saiful. It was on the same day. On the 28th, at the result of the examination; finding was:
1. No suggestion of penetration to the anus rectum
How could this be sufficient for the elements to be proven under s.377B?
Based on the authority the charge should be strike out on the ground it is frivolous, vexatious and abuse process of the court.
At pg 19 referred. para 21 referred “tidak dinafikan elemen penting untuk dibuktikan adalah terdapat kemasukan zakar ke dalam dubur pengadu”.
The 1st report – refer to introduction of plastic.
At the Hospital Kuala Lumpur report- “no conclusive of clinical finding of the penetration.”
In the view of these 2 medical reports did not point to the fundamental element of penetration.
Para 25 referred to. At pg 34 referred.
Conclusion in the 2 reports – berdasarkan keterangan di atas…tidak boleh dijadikan asas untuk membatalkan pertuduhan di peringkat ini tanpa mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi terdahulu.”
How could Yang Arif said this? The conviction would be unlikely based on these 2 medical reports. The charge could not be proven because it is a fundamental element of the charge.
Yang Arif: I already made my decision, please proceed with the trial.
Karpal Singh: This is the merit, there should be a stay.
Yang Arif: You are saying my decision is wrong so there ought be a stay?
Karpal Singh: Yes, but at the discretion of the court for the stay of proceeding must be exercise judicially and not arbitrary. Most likely Court of Appeal will agree with our appeal. The lordship is wrong in this issue based on the 2 medical reports.
Karpal Singh: Refer to skeletal submission. Pg. 2 quoted.
“Setelah meneliti kes-kes saya dapati High Court mempunyai kuasa inherent untuk melindungi proses mahkamah dari disalahgunakan…”
Yang Arif is wrong in concluding this issue. “Berdasarkan alasan yang di atas saya berpendapat hanya kerana laporan perubatan eksibit Anwar Ibrahim 18 ada menyatakan “no conclusive clinical finding suggestive of penetration to the anus / rectum tidak boleh dijadikan asas untuk menjadiakn mahkamah menggunakan kuasa inherent membatalkan pertuduhan pada peringkat ini tanpa mendengar keterangan saksi-saksi yang ingin dipanggil oleh Pendakwa terlebih dahulu.
Isu niat jahat dan penyalahgunaan process mahkamah di mana sejarah kes tahun 1998 tentang penglibatan individu tertentu dan pendakwaan serta mencipta keterangan palsu untuk membawa keterangan jahat terhadap pemohon. Penglibatan AG dan pendakwaraya dalam kejadian 1998 dan black eye incident. Barisan pendakwa raya yang terkini didalangi oleh AG pada tahun 1998. Barisan pendakwaraya kini adalah berat sebelah dan mala fide. Ini mesti dibatalkan.
Dalam afidavit Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menyatakan tentang AG membawa keterangan palsu di mana kejadian 1998 adalah berat sebelah. Tuduhan terkini adalah bersifat niat jahat dan pemohon memohon membatalkan pertuduhan dibenarkan. Yang Arif telah dismissed the application and it is wrong.
The charge s.377 is an abuse of ct process. The accused should be given every opportunity to appeal.
I pray for a stay of bicara until the outcome of the appeal. The issue of 2 medical report is conclusive and the charge cannot be sustained.
Dato’ Mohd Yusof : For a moment I thought this is not an application for stay. It is suppose to be an application of stay against Yang Arif order. But later I realize this is an application to postpone the case. It is trite law that this court has the discretion to grant or not to grant. But as a rule- stay can only be granted if there is exceptional circumstances.
Even a strong ground of appeal is not a ground for stay.
Refer Bundle of Authority [Tag 4] in the case of Re Kong Thai Sawmill and [Tag 9] Kosma Palm Oil Mill referred.
Tag 11 – Asean Security Papermills case referred.
Over the year all the court seems to agree that one of the determining factors to grant stay is exceptional circumstances.
where the defence did not show any exceptional circumstances. If the defence succeeded in the appeal, the appeal would not rendered nugatory.
How the appeal would be rendered nugatory cannot be shown by the defence . If the defence succeed in their appeal, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will be discharged. He will not be deprived.
Karpal Singh: The trial would be nugotory.
Dato’ Mohd Yusof: The principle is the appeal would be nugotary. You will not be enjoy the fruits of the appeal.
It is wrong at this juncture to say that this court is wrong in it judgement. This is not the proper corum. The def said we got the medical reports – the statement of the doctor did not said about plastic. I have the IP and the doctors statements at my disposal. It is the handwriting of the doctor. This is not brought up to this court before. The doctor in PUSRAWI and Hospital Kuala Lumpur did not find any injury. Report Hospital Kuala Lumpur is half of the report, it is only a clinical report. We have the lab report, where semen was found on some of the specimens. The doctors did not have the benefit to know which part of the body the semen was found.
Medical report alone is not sufficient.
The defense is unable to show how if the stay is not granted, it would rendered nugatory.
Karpal Singh: It is clear from the report “introduction of the plastic to the anus”
Yang Arif: I will take a look at it.
Karpal Singh: A trial would be rendered nugatory. IsDatuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim hardship is it not a special circumstances? Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim political future, is it not a special circumstances? Trauma suffered by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the family, is it not a special circumstances? The court can exercise a discretion. That is all.
Yang Arif: Give me 10 minutes.
Parties as before.
Yang Arif: Dalam kes ini didapati tiada apa-apa keadaan luarbiasa. Permohonan ditolak dan perbicaraan kes akan diteruskan.
Karpal Singh: We seek adjournment of the trial. Can we adjourn pending the meeting with the PMR tomorrow? The prosecution have no objection. Commencement at 2.30 pm tomorrow. It is a directive of the Chief Justice.
Dato’ Mohd Yusof: We agreed because we would like to have an uninterrupted examination of our witnesses. We agree to start after the application at the Court of Appeal tomorrow at 2.30 pm.
Yang Arif: Since both parties agreed the case will start at 2.30 pm tomorrow. I hope there will be no interruption and postponement.
Karpal Singh: Pending directive of the Court of Appeal.
Adjourned to 2.30 tomorrow. [03:35]