High Court dismisses MACC bid to remove evidence
PETALING JAYA, Sept 10 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) failed in its bid at the High Court here today to remove damaging evidence that its men torture people during questioning, as alleged by a witness who testified at the inquest for political aide Teoh Beng Hock yesterday.
The national anti-graft body had objected strongly to letting Sivanesan Tanggavelu, 22, testify as a witness in the coroner’s court tasked to find out the cause of Teoh’s death.
Sivanesan told the coroner’s court yesterday that he had been badly beaten up by Selangor graft busters during interrogation at their office in Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam last year. He had to be hospitalised for four days.
Photographs detailing his injuries and a police report filed in September last year complaining about MACC brutality were admitted as evidence.
MACC’s legal director Datuk Abdul Razak Musa, who is holding a watching brief at Teoh’s inquest, insists that any evidence from Sivanesan, who is a suspect in a separate and ongoing investigation by the Selangor MACC, is “not relevant” to find out how Teoh died.
He maintained the same position in the High Court today.
Deputy public prosecutor Manoj Kurup, who was called to represent the MACC in its case today, argued that the magistrate, Azmil Muntapha Abas who is acting as coroner in the inquest, had ruled “erroneously” in allowing Sivanesan’s evidence to be put on record.
Manoj asked the judge to order the magistrate to expunge the witness’s testimony from its court records because it cannot be verified as the investigation into his case is not complete.
Echoing Abdul Razak, he pointed out that Sivanesan’s claims were made 10 months ago and insisted it is irrelevant to Teoh’s death investigation.
Manoj told the High Court that the real reason behind Sivanesan’s introduction as a witness was to shift the focus on to MACC and damage its public image.
But the lawyers for Teoh’s family and his employer, the Selangor state government, Gobind Singh Deo and Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, respectively, pointed out to judge Yeoh that the MACC failed to give an accurate account of what had happened in the coroner’s court and was in fact abusing the process of law in its attempt to stop Sivanesan’s evidence from being entered.
Gobind explained to judge Yeoh that Abdul Razak had ticked him off for trying to put in Sivanesan’s police report through another witness who did not make the report.
He added that the MACC lawyer had openly declared earlier this week that he would not complain if the evidence was put in through the appropriate witness.
Gobind repeated his argument from the day before that Abdul Razak was now trying to make a U-turn after signing away his rights.
Both Gobind and Malik argued that Sivanesan’s evidence was needed to supply the coroner with all the facts surrounding Teoh’s death so that he can make an informed decision at the end of the inquest.
Gobind referred to Section 328 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which details the scope of the inquest and stressed that the coroner was bound by duty to find out “all matters necessary to enable an opinion to be formed as to the manner in which the deceased came by his death.”
He added that such information could also include “hearsay”, based on the ruling in another case.
Picking up from where Gobind left off, Malik directed the judge’s attention to the last bit of Section 328 of the CPC which states: “and as to whether his death resulted in any way from, or was accelerated by any unlawful act or omission on the part of any other person.”
The two lawyers said they wanted to show, though Sivanesan’s evidence, that the MACC officers who had testified under oath earlier were lying.
They added that they would be bringing in a Thai expert as witness on Monday to show that Teoh’s death was not sudden as classified by the police, or the result of suicide, as concluded by the two pathologists who carried out the autopsy on Teoh.
Malik told judge Yeoh that they strongly believe Teoh’s death was the result of foul play, possibly homicide.
He added that one of the pathologists, Dr Dr Khairul Aznam Ibrahim, had not ruled out that Teoh could have suffered from injuries before falling to death, and had added that the massive injuries found during the post-mortem could have masked the evidence of injuries caused by an assault.
Shah Alam High Court judge Yeoh Wee Siam – who is temporarily based at the court complex here because of renovations to the main building – dismissed the MACC’s application to review and revise the ruling made by magistrate Azmil.
She also denied the national anti-graft body’s bid to postpone the inquest from continuing tomorrow, pending their appeal at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya.
The inquest will continue at the Shah Alam magistrate’s court at 9am tomorrow.
MI
10/09/09
PETALING JAYA, Sept 10 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) failed in its bid at the High Court here today to remove damaging evidence that its men torture people during questioning, as alleged by a witness who testified at the inquest for political aide Teoh Beng Hock yesterday.
The national anti-graft body had objected strongly to letting Sivanesan Tanggavelu, 22, testify as a witness in the coroner’s court tasked to find out the cause of Teoh’s death.
Sivanesan told the coroner’s court yesterday that he had been badly beaten up by Selangor graft busters during interrogation at their office in Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam last year. He had to be hospitalised for four days.
Photographs detailing his injuries and a police report filed in September last year complaining about MACC brutality were admitted as evidence.
MACC’s legal director Datuk Abdul Razak Musa, who is holding a watching brief at Teoh’s inquest, insists that any evidence from Sivanesan, who is a suspect in a separate and ongoing investigation by the Selangor MACC, is “not relevant” to find out how Teoh died.
He maintained the same position in the High Court today.
Deputy public prosecutor Manoj Kurup, who was called to represent the MACC in its case today, argued that the magistrate, Azmil Muntapha Abas who is acting as coroner in the inquest, had ruled “erroneously” in allowing Sivanesan’s evidence to be put on record.
Manoj asked the judge to order the magistrate to expunge the witness’s testimony from its court records because it cannot be verified as the investigation into his case is not complete.
Echoing Abdul Razak, he pointed out that Sivanesan’s claims were made 10 months ago and insisted it is irrelevant to Teoh’s death investigation.
Manoj told the High Court that the real reason behind Sivanesan’s introduction as a witness was to shift the focus on to MACC and damage its public image.
But the lawyers for Teoh’s family and his employer, the Selangor state government, Gobind Singh Deo and Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, respectively, pointed out to judge Yeoh that the MACC failed to give an accurate account of what had happened in the coroner’s court and was in fact abusing the process of law in its attempt to stop Sivanesan’s evidence from being entered.
Gobind explained to judge Yeoh that Abdul Razak had ticked him off for trying to put in Sivanesan’s police report through another witness who did not make the report.
He added that the MACC lawyer had openly declared earlier this week that he would not complain if the evidence was put in through the appropriate witness.
Gobind repeated his argument from the day before that Abdul Razak was now trying to make a U-turn after signing away his rights.
Both Gobind and Malik argued that Sivanesan’s evidence was needed to supply the coroner with all the facts surrounding Teoh’s death so that he can make an informed decision at the end of the inquest.
Gobind referred to Section 328 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which details the scope of the inquest and stressed that the coroner was bound by duty to find out “all matters necessary to enable an opinion to be formed as to the manner in which the deceased came by his death.”
He added that such information could also include “hearsay”, based on the ruling in another case.
Picking up from where Gobind left off, Malik directed the judge’s attention to the last bit of Section 328 of the CPC which states: “and as to whether his death resulted in any way from, or was accelerated by any unlawful act or omission on the part of any other person.”
The two lawyers said they wanted to show, though Sivanesan’s evidence, that the MACC officers who had testified under oath earlier were lying.
They added that they would be bringing in a Thai expert as witness on Monday to show that Teoh’s death was not sudden as classified by the police, or the result of suicide, as concluded by the two pathologists who carried out the autopsy on Teoh.
Malik told judge Yeoh that they strongly believe Teoh’s death was the result of foul play, possibly homicide.
He added that one of the pathologists, Dr Dr Khairul Aznam Ibrahim, had not ruled out that Teoh could have suffered from injuries before falling to death, and had added that the massive injuries found during the post-mortem could have masked the evidence of injuries caused by an assault.
Shah Alam High Court judge Yeoh Wee Siam – who is temporarily based at the court complex here because of renovations to the main building – dismissed the MACC’s application to review and revise the ruling made by magistrate Azmil.
She also denied the national anti-graft body’s bid to postpone the inquest from continuing tomorrow, pending their appeal at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya.
The inquest will continue at the Shah Alam magistrate’s court at 9am tomorrow.
MI
10/09/09
No comments:
Post a Comment