The Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy case now moves from the High Court to the Appeals Court:
Sodomy II prosecutors insist DNA samples not suspect
I am probably one of many who had thought that the Prosecution had an iron clad case against Anwar Ibrahim in the Sodomy 2 case, I hope that the Appeals Court agree with the Prosecution this time.
Sodomy II prosecutors insist DNA samples not suspect
KUALA LUMPUR, July 11 — The prosecution in Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy case today applied to the Appeals Court to set aside a High Court decision acquitting and discharging Anwar of sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
It also applied to have Anwar convicted under Section 377B of the Penal Code on the offence of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature.
The applications were made on the grounds that High Court Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, who heard the case, had erred in doubting the integrity of the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.
The prosecution contended that Mohamad Zabidin had ruled at the end of the prosecution’s case that the “male Y” obtained from the DNA profile analysed by a chemist, Dr Seah Lee Hong, was from the semen extract that matched the DNA profile obtained from samples taken from the lockup occupied by Anwar.
These were among the grounds given by the prosecution in its petition of appeal, filed last Monday at the Appeals Court registry.
The prosecution submitted 10 grounds in the petition.
It also said that Mohamad Zabidin, at the end of the prosecution’s case, ruled that that there was no way for investigating officer DSP Blacious Jude Pereira to have used the DNA samples obtained from the lockup cell to tamper with the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.
The judge, according to the prosecution, had also erred in law and in fact when finding that there were doubts on the integrity of the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful when he (judge) had called Anwar to enter his defence on the charge at the end of the prosecution’s case.
“The honourable judge had erred in law and fact when he failed to decide that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case beyond any doubts at the end of the defence case,” the prosecution contended.
The prosecution also claimed that the judge had erred in law and fact in assessing the testimony pertaining to the collection, handling and analysis of DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.
The judge had considered wrongly the testimony by defence witnesses Dr David Wells and Dr Brian McDonald who gave their views based on incomplete and incomprehensive theories, without taking into account theories and findings by specialists produced by the prosecution, it said.
The prosecution felt that the judge had also erred in law and fact when he failed to assess Dr McDonald’s expertise and experience in DNA examination, and also that of Dr Seah and Dr Nor Aidora Saedon, a chemist, both of whom gave their opinions based on their own examinations and analysis, compared with Dr Wells and Dr McDonald whose opinions were only based on theories.
It argued that the judge also failed to take into account that there was other evidence which supported Mohd Saiful’s testimony, and had erred in law and fact when placing the burden of proof higher than the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution to prove its case.
Last Monday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court handed over its 80-page written judgment, together with the appeal record, to the prosecution to facilitate the latter in the filing of the appeal.
On January 9 this year, Mohamad Zabidin acquitted and discharged Anwar of sodomising Mohd Saiful, 26, at a unit in the Desa Damansara Condominium, Bukit Damansara, here between 3.10 pm and 4.30 pm on June 26, 2008. — Bernama
It also applied to have Anwar convicted under Section 377B of the Penal Code on the offence of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature.
The applications were made on the grounds that High Court Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, who heard the case, had erred in doubting the integrity of the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.
The prosecution contended that Mohamad Zabidin had ruled at the end of the prosecution’s case that the “male Y” obtained from the DNA profile analysed by a chemist, Dr Seah Lee Hong, was from the semen extract that matched the DNA profile obtained from samples taken from the lockup occupied by Anwar.
These were among the grounds given by the prosecution in its petition of appeal, filed last Monday at the Appeals Court registry.
The prosecution submitted 10 grounds in the petition.
It also said that Mohamad Zabidin, at the end of the prosecution’s case, ruled that that there was no way for investigating officer DSP Blacious Jude Pereira to have used the DNA samples obtained from the lockup cell to tamper with the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.
The judge, according to the prosecution, had also erred in law and in fact when finding that there were doubts on the integrity of the DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful when he (judge) had called Anwar to enter his defence on the charge at the end of the prosecution’s case.
“The honourable judge had erred in law and fact when he failed to decide that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case beyond any doubts at the end of the defence case,” the prosecution contended.
The prosecution also claimed that the judge had erred in law and fact in assessing the testimony pertaining to the collection, handling and analysis of DNA samples obtained from Mohd Saiful.
The judge had considered wrongly the testimony by defence witnesses Dr David Wells and Dr Brian McDonald who gave their views based on incomplete and incomprehensive theories, without taking into account theories and findings by specialists produced by the prosecution, it said.
The prosecution felt that the judge had also erred in law and fact when he failed to assess Dr McDonald’s expertise and experience in DNA examination, and also that of Dr Seah and Dr Nor Aidora Saedon, a chemist, both of whom gave their opinions based on their own examinations and analysis, compared with Dr Wells and Dr McDonald whose opinions were only based on theories.
It argued that the judge also failed to take into account that there was other evidence which supported Mohd Saiful’s testimony, and had erred in law and fact when placing the burden of proof higher than the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution to prove its case.
Last Monday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court handed over its 80-page written judgment, together with the appeal record, to the prosecution to facilitate the latter in the filing of the appeal.
On January 9 this year, Mohamad Zabidin acquitted and discharged Anwar of sodomising Mohd Saiful, 26, at a unit in the Desa Damansara Condominium, Bukit Damansara, here between 3.10 pm and 4.30 pm on June 26, 2008. — Bernama
I am probably one of many who had thought that the Prosecution had an iron clad case against Anwar Ibrahim in the Sodomy 2 case, I hope that the Appeals Court agree with the Prosecution this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment