KUMAR HASHIMAH & CO No 6(A), Jalan Abdullah,
PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA Jalan Bangsar,
ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS 59000 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel : 03-2282 5622
Fax : 03-2282 5245
P. UTHAYAKUMAR. LL.B, CLP.
Office Hours :
Mon. – Fri.
9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.
Sat. & Sunday – Closed
Your Reference :
In Reply Please Quote : KH/J 57/UK/2007
Date : 19/3/2010
The Secretary to
YAA Zaki Tun Azmi,
Chief Justice of Malaya,
Chief Justice’s Chambers,
Federal Court of Malaysia,
Istana Kehakiman ,
Precinct 3, Fax: 603 8880 3507
62506 PUTRAJAYA, E-Mail: cj@kehakiman.gov.my
Malaysia By Hand
Alamat email ini dilindungi dari Spambot. Perlukan JavaScript untuk melihatnya
YAA,
Re: 1) Application to recuse the learned Sessions Court Judge Sabariah bt Othman from further hearing P.Uthayakumar’s “ethnic cleansing” criminal trial case No 3-62-548-2007.
2) Application for this case to be heard by a High Court Judge.
Kami dengan rendah diri memohon berhujah dalam bahasa Inggeris
We refer to the above matter wherein we act for Mr. P.Uthayakumar of c/o No 6A Jalan Abdullah, Off Jalan Bangsar, 59000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
With no disrespect to the courts we hereby appeal for your directions that Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Judge Puan Sabariah Othman be recused from further hearing P.Uthayakumar’s criminal prosecution for “ethnic cleansing” of in particular of the Kg. Medan ethnic minority Malaysian Indians.
Our grounds for this application are as follows:-
1. It is public knowledge that this Mr.P.Uthayakumar’s prosecution is politically motivated by the UMNO controlled Malaysian Government.
2. From the very onset ie from the day when the accused Mr. P.Uthayakumar was suddenly arrested and produced in court, the Attorney General who is a member of the Legal and Judicial Services Commission and in effect as one of the bosses also for this said learned Sessions Court Judge had appeared for the Prosecution. It is humbly submitted that in this circumstances alone this learned Judge would not be able to make decisions without fear or favour.
3. When produced in open court the learned Attorney General is believed to have had the benefit of prior notice and was waiting for Mr.P.Uthayakumar in open court.
4. Mr. P.Uthayakumar had asked for the matter to be stood down until his lawyers arrived but the said learned Judge gave him only five (5) minutes.
5. In about that five (5) minutes time, the learned Judge again appeared in open court and had begun proceedings knowing that P.Uthayakumar’s lawyers had not been present yet.
6. Despite Mr. P.Uthayakumar informing the learned Judge that he still needed an adjournment as his lawyers were on their way the learned Judge insisted on proceeding and indeed proceeded with the learned Attorney General’s submissions.
7. Luckily shortly thereafter Mr. P.Uthayakumar’s lawyers started coming into the open court one by one.
8. From the above, it is plain and obvious that the whole weight and might of the entire nation especially with the learned Attorney General’s presence versus one individual ie Mr. P.Uthayakumar which had no bearing at all whatsoever on the said learned Judge’s mind when she had decided to proceed without Mr. P.Uthayakumar’s lawyers.
9. Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done from the very beginning.
10. This learned Sessions Court Judge heard submissions as to whether bail should be granted as the learned Attorney General had unprecedently opposed to the granting of bail even for a mere Sedition charge.
11. Having heard submissions from both parties the said learned Judge adjourned the matter to “stand down untuk keputusan atas jaminan”
However at 3.30p.m this learned Judge unilaterally allowed bail at RM50,000.00 which is ten (10) times the maximum fine for this charge under Section 4(1) (c) of the Sedition Act which maximum is a mere RM5,000.00.
12. In any event the learned Judge set bail at RM50,000.00 without even hearing submissions on the quantum of bail especially from Mr. P.Uthayakumar’s lawyers.
Note: As soon as bail of RM50,000.00 was posted, Mr. P.Uthayakumar was rearrested irrespective within the court complex, injured during the arrest, detained overnight and the day after on 13/12/07 was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for 514 days without trial and conviction.
13. At all material times this learned Sessions Court Judge was a Sessions Civil Court No 4 Judge but brought in specifically to hear Mr P.Uthayakumar’s case. Why?
14. This learned Judge’s Civil Court mindset is evidenced when she had recorded the accused lawyers as the Plaintiff’s lawyers rather than the Accused’s lawyers from page 8 onwards in the Notes of Proceedings. With due respect, it may well follow that she may have applied Civil law standards as opposed to criminal law standards.
15. The said learned Attorney General is a potential witness in this case vis a vis amongst others his non prosecution for the murder or manslaughter of five ethnic minority Malaysian Indians killed and the injuring and grevious bodily harm of one hundred over other Indians in the mysterious Kg Medan “ethnic cleansing” tragedy which has also been brought to the attention of the Royal Commission on the Police Force in 2005 when and where YAA yourself was a member of the said Royal Commission.
16. In fact Mr P.Uthayakumar’s lawyer had on 20/10/2008 (at page 12 of the notes of proceedings) submitted that “AG dan OKT ada “bad blood”. Berdasarkan report 05.12.2007 berkenaan penyokong Hindraf yang dituduh. Isu consent yang diberi oleh AG terhadap OKT ada motif yang tidak baik. Ada sivil suit dan exchange of word. Seksyen 5, consent adalah isu yang harus dipertimbangkan. R.v Bow Street HL 577 (muka surat 596) AG ada personal interest dalam kes ini dan consent diberikan sebab ada kes ini diteruskan dan OKT disabitkan. Charge sheet signed by AG, sivil suit, apa perception dari awam, apa assurance oleh public. Its very pertinent”.
17. “Semua directly or indirectly bring him to the rule of AG and need of police. Incident Kampung Medan beberapa surat dihantarkan kepada AG dan beberapa laporan polis dibuat. Antara AG dan OKT relation jadi tak baik. Starting pada 2007 bulan sudah tapi build up incident. Incident kepada Kampung Medan belum diambil tindakan. Unhappiest within these 2 parties. Semuanya rujuk kepada 1 malice interest dan lain-lain iaitu AG ada interest. Seksyen 5 consent menjadi nullity dan ditunjukkan consent vitiated atas sebab- sebab yang diberikan tadi”.
18. Please take note that except for two applications all other applications totalling twenty (20) by P.Uthayakumar and his lawyers including numerous applications to the said Judge to dismiss the charges against Mr. P.Uthayakumar for being groundless further to Section 173 (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code and to recuse herself as the Judge hearing this matter was not allowed.
19. Civil suit No 3-62-548-2007 against the Attorney General dated 11.12.2007. And it is this very same Attorney General who had signed and issued the consent to charge Mr. P.Uthayakumar and had personally appeared to conduct the prosecution against Mr. P.Uthayakumar on 11/12/2007.
20. Mr P.Uthayakumar had made a police report in the week just before his arrest on 13/12/07 against the Attorney General amongst other things that the Attorney General had made a criminally defamatory statement against him. (P.Uthayakumar).
21. The Attorney General had also maliciously caused Mr. P.Uthayakumar to be imprisoned for 514 days without trial and conviction. This is based on one of the nine grounds of P.Uthayakumar’s ISA detention being that P.Uthayakumar had led a peaceful protest at the office of the Attorney General protesting that the Attorney General had refused to prosecute cases of the local authorities demolishing hindu temples with impunity even at the average rate of one hindu temple demolished in every one week.
22. There was an open argument between the Attorney General and P.Uthayakumar in open court at the Shah Alam Sessions Court when the Attorney General alleged that Hindraf (and vis a vis P.Uthayakumar) were linked to the LTTE terrorists.
23. On page 27 of the notes of proceedings the learned Judge had ruled “Tangguhan tak dibenarkan atas alasan perubatan” despite a medical letter being produced on a medical check up in London (for a suspected rare heart disease).
24. On 28/9/2009 (pages 28 and 29 of the notes of proceedings) the learned Judge even denied an application for P.Uthayakumar to sit on the bar table as he had volumnious documents and photographs to cross examine on.
25. Despite an application pending in the High Court for a transfer of this matter to the High Court, the learned Judge had made the decision to proceed irrespective “memandangkan Notis Usul belum ditetapkan tarikh dan belum ada perintah” (page 30 of the Notes of evidence).
26. Despite the High Court Judge being on leave, on the very same day the learned Judge further rejected another application for an adjournment despite there being a formal application pending hearing in court for documents related to the “ethnic cleansing” in Kg. Medan which is the crux of the defence against P.Uthayakumar. (page 30 and 31 of the Notes of Evidence).
27. Again on the very same day the third application was made to adjourn proceedings in order to file a formal written application to recuse the Judge was again dismissed on the grounds “kes akan diteruskan untuk perbicaraan walaupun Notis Usul dan Notis Permohonan ada difailkan dan OKT akan failkan Notis Permohonan untuk disqualified Hakim. (page 31 of Notes of Proceedings).
28. Mr. P.Uthayakumar from the dock then made a four point application among others the disparity between the RM50,000.00 bail imposed by the Sessions Court Judge and the reduction to RM10,000.00 by the High Court Judge upon appeal. P.Uthayakumar submitted that in the Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II trial an adjourment was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge hearing the charge pending an appeal to the High Court. Despite the above this learned Sessions Court Judge decided that she would proceed with the hearing (page 33 of the Notes of Evidence).
29. Peguambela- “pohon kes ini ditangguhkan sehingga semakan difailkan. Mahkamah- “Tidak dibenarkan kes ini akan diteruskan sehingga permohonan diputuskan (page 34 of the Notes of Proceedings).
30. Peguambela -“Pohon kes ini ditangguhkan dan pohon prosiding digantung. Undertake the (to) file semakan by tomorrow Mahkamah- “tangguhan tak dibenarkan” (page 34 of the notes of evidence).
31. Uthayakumar’s lawyer Mr.N.Surendran then submitted that even the Attorney General did not apply for Uthayakumar’s International Pasport to be impounded but the Judge on her own accord and without hearing any submissions especially on P.Uthayakumar’s International Pasport impounded the same. Also cited was the authority of Metropolitan Properties where Lord Denming held on the “mere likelihood of biousness” principle in effect “where if the Judge still sat on the case his decision cannot stand”. Despite the above this learned Judge yet again dismissed P.Uthayakumar application Mahkamah- “Permohonan OKT untuk mengecualikan saya dari meneruskan perbicaraan ini adalah ditolak dan tidak dibenarkan (page 36 of the notes of evidence)
32. OKT “Pohon prosiding ditangguhkan sehingga keputusan di Mahkamah Tinggi”. “Akan failkan semakan pagi esok”.
33. At 4.56 p.m on 29/9/2009, Mr Manogar informed the court that the High Court had turned down Mr.P.Uthayakumar’s application and that an appeal would be made to the Court of Appeal and that a date had been set for the hearing of the Notis Permohonan at the High Court “Pohon tangguhan untuk dapatkan temujanji dengan CJA bagi mendapatkan stay”
34. On 30/9/09 “Pagi ini telah failkan notis Rayuan atas keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang menolak permohonan kami untuk semakan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen dan buat permohonan kepada YAA Mahkamah Rayuan dan pohon untuk bicara di Mahkamah ini ditangguh sehingga kelulusan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan.
Permohonan ini dibawah perbincangan YAA Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan atas nasihat Pendaftar, kami akan failkan satu Notis Usul dengan Perakuan Segera untuk penangguhan stay prosiding ini.
Memandangkan hal ini dan permohonan kami yang dibawa ke perhatian YAA Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, wajar Mahkamah ini menunggu untuk tangguhkan kes ini.
Dalam Kes Teoh Beng Hock, Mahkamah telah tunggu untuk keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan.
35. Mahkamah- “Tangguhan tidak dibenarkan dan kes akan diteruskan”.
36. Despite P.Uthayakumar asking for the List of Witnesses, Mahkamah- “Senarai saksi tak menjadi compulsory untuk dibekalkan, tak ada perintah untuk DPP serahkan senarai tersebut”.
37. When P.Uthayakumar asked for a copy of the document to be examine the learned Judge had prejudically remarked “OKT boleh mengambil masa the whole day untuk periksa dokumen. (page 42 of notes of proceedings).
38. Mahkamah- “soalan diteruskan” (page 43 of votes of proceedings.)
39. Keputusan- Bantahan pihak Pembela adalah ditolak. Artikel yang dikemukakan melalui Saksi Plaintif pertama adalah diterima dan dibenarkan untuk ditanda sebagai barang kes. (page 52 of the Notes of Proceedings).
40. On the issue of the admisibility of a document submitted to be not relevant by the defence the learned Judge decided “Setelah meneliti affidavit- afidavit dan hujahan yang dikemukakan, adalah diputuskan bahawa permohonan tertuduh untuk mendapatkan dokumen dibawah S51 (A) KAJ seperti dibawah paragraph a-h adalah tidak dibenarkan ditolak. (page 57 of the notes of proceedings).
41. Mahkamah- “Bantahan dibenarkan” saya cadangkan kamu tak tahu motif tendering dokumen ini ke dalam Mahkamah? “Soalan tak perlu dijawab” (page 70 of the notes of proceedings)
42. OKT- “ Sebahagian pembelaan kes menjurus mala fide polis dalam pendakwaan ini terhadap saya. Apakah sebab dokumen ini ditenderkan? Mahkamah “Soalan ini tak perlu dijawab”.
43. Mahkamah- “Permohonan tak dibenarkan” (at page 80 of the Notes of Proceedings.)
44. The said Judge’s earlier statement in open court that “she has to consult someone”, we humbly submit is fatal.
In the circumstances, with respect we humbly appeal that this Sessions Court Judge is recused from further hearing this matter and that this matter is transferred and heard by a High Court Judge especially as this trial involves matters concerning the general public interest and the whole world is watching.
Justice must not only be done but must manifestedly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
We seek your kind indulgence accordingly.
Thank You,
Your Faithfully
________________
cc : Tuan Pendaftar,
Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur
Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur By Hand
22, 23 &24/3/10 – Bicara (Case No 3-62-548-2007)
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya,
Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia,
Bahagian Pendakwaan,
Aras 7, Blok C3,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan, By Hand
62512 Putrajaya (Case No 3-62-548-2007)
PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA Jalan Bangsar,
ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS 59000 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel : 03-2282 5622
Fax : 03-2282 5245
P. UTHAYAKUMAR. LL.B, CLP.
Office Hours :
Mon. – Fri.
9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.
Sat. & Sunday – Closed
Your Reference :
In Reply Please Quote : KH/J 57/UK/2007
Date : 19/3/2010
The Secretary to
YAA Zaki Tun Azmi,
Chief Justice of Malaya,
Chief Justice’s Chambers,
Federal Court of Malaysia,
Istana Kehakiman ,
Precinct 3, Fax: 603 8880 3507
62506 PUTRAJAYA, E-Mail: cj@kehakiman.gov.my
Malaysia By Hand
Alamat email ini dilindungi dari Spambot. Perlukan JavaScript untuk melihatnya
YAA,
Re: 1) Application to recuse the learned Sessions Court Judge Sabariah bt Othman from further hearing P.Uthayakumar’s “ethnic cleansing” criminal trial case No 3-62-548-2007.
2) Application for this case to be heard by a High Court Judge.
Kami dengan rendah diri memohon berhujah dalam bahasa Inggeris
We refer to the above matter wherein we act for Mr. P.Uthayakumar of c/o No 6A Jalan Abdullah, Off Jalan Bangsar, 59000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
With no disrespect to the courts we hereby appeal for your directions that Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Judge Puan Sabariah Othman be recused from further hearing P.Uthayakumar’s criminal prosecution for “ethnic cleansing” of in particular of the Kg. Medan ethnic minority Malaysian Indians.
Our grounds for this application are as follows:-
1. It is public knowledge that this Mr.P.Uthayakumar’s prosecution is politically motivated by the UMNO controlled Malaysian Government.
2. From the very onset ie from the day when the accused Mr. P.Uthayakumar was suddenly arrested and produced in court, the Attorney General who is a member of the Legal and Judicial Services Commission and in effect as one of the bosses also for this said learned Sessions Court Judge had appeared for the Prosecution. It is humbly submitted that in this circumstances alone this learned Judge would not be able to make decisions without fear or favour.
3. When produced in open court the learned Attorney General is believed to have had the benefit of prior notice and was waiting for Mr.P.Uthayakumar in open court.
4. Mr. P.Uthayakumar had asked for the matter to be stood down until his lawyers arrived but the said learned Judge gave him only five (5) minutes.
5. In about that five (5) minutes time, the learned Judge again appeared in open court and had begun proceedings knowing that P.Uthayakumar’s lawyers had not been present yet.
6. Despite Mr. P.Uthayakumar informing the learned Judge that he still needed an adjournment as his lawyers were on their way the learned Judge insisted on proceeding and indeed proceeded with the learned Attorney General’s submissions.
7. Luckily shortly thereafter Mr. P.Uthayakumar’s lawyers started coming into the open court one by one.
8. From the above, it is plain and obvious that the whole weight and might of the entire nation especially with the learned Attorney General’s presence versus one individual ie Mr. P.Uthayakumar which had no bearing at all whatsoever on the said learned Judge’s mind when she had decided to proceed without Mr. P.Uthayakumar’s lawyers.
9. Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done from the very beginning.
10. This learned Sessions Court Judge heard submissions as to whether bail should be granted as the learned Attorney General had unprecedently opposed to the granting of bail even for a mere Sedition charge.
11. Having heard submissions from both parties the said learned Judge adjourned the matter to “stand down untuk keputusan atas jaminan”
However at 3.30p.m this learned Judge unilaterally allowed bail at RM50,000.00 which is ten (10) times the maximum fine for this charge under Section 4(1) (c) of the Sedition Act which maximum is a mere RM5,000.00.
12. In any event the learned Judge set bail at RM50,000.00 without even hearing submissions on the quantum of bail especially from Mr. P.Uthayakumar’s lawyers.
Note: As soon as bail of RM50,000.00 was posted, Mr. P.Uthayakumar was rearrested irrespective within the court complex, injured during the arrest, detained overnight and the day after on 13/12/07 was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for 514 days without trial and conviction.
13. At all material times this learned Sessions Court Judge was a Sessions Civil Court No 4 Judge but brought in specifically to hear Mr P.Uthayakumar’s case. Why?
14. This learned Judge’s Civil Court mindset is evidenced when she had recorded the accused lawyers as the Plaintiff’s lawyers rather than the Accused’s lawyers from page 8 onwards in the Notes of Proceedings. With due respect, it may well follow that she may have applied Civil law standards as opposed to criminal law standards.
15. The said learned Attorney General is a potential witness in this case vis a vis amongst others his non prosecution for the murder or manslaughter of five ethnic minority Malaysian Indians killed and the injuring and grevious bodily harm of one hundred over other Indians in the mysterious Kg Medan “ethnic cleansing” tragedy which has also been brought to the attention of the Royal Commission on the Police Force in 2005 when and where YAA yourself was a member of the said Royal Commission.
16. In fact Mr P.Uthayakumar’s lawyer had on 20/10/2008 (at page 12 of the notes of proceedings) submitted that “AG dan OKT ada “bad blood”. Berdasarkan report 05.12.2007 berkenaan penyokong Hindraf yang dituduh. Isu consent yang diberi oleh AG terhadap OKT ada motif yang tidak baik. Ada sivil suit dan exchange of word. Seksyen 5, consent adalah isu yang harus dipertimbangkan. R.v Bow Street HL 577 (muka surat 596) AG ada personal interest dalam kes ini dan consent diberikan sebab ada kes ini diteruskan dan OKT disabitkan. Charge sheet signed by AG, sivil suit, apa perception dari awam, apa assurance oleh public. Its very pertinent”.
17. “Semua directly or indirectly bring him to the rule of AG and need of police. Incident Kampung Medan beberapa surat dihantarkan kepada AG dan beberapa laporan polis dibuat. Antara AG dan OKT relation jadi tak baik. Starting pada 2007 bulan sudah tapi build up incident. Incident kepada Kampung Medan belum diambil tindakan. Unhappiest within these 2 parties. Semuanya rujuk kepada 1 malice interest dan lain-lain iaitu AG ada interest. Seksyen 5 consent menjadi nullity dan ditunjukkan consent vitiated atas sebab- sebab yang diberikan tadi”.
18. Please take note that except for two applications all other applications totalling twenty (20) by P.Uthayakumar and his lawyers including numerous applications to the said Judge to dismiss the charges against Mr. P.Uthayakumar for being groundless further to Section 173 (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code and to recuse herself as the Judge hearing this matter was not allowed.
19. Civil suit No 3-62-548-2007 against the Attorney General dated 11.12.2007. And it is this very same Attorney General who had signed and issued the consent to charge Mr. P.Uthayakumar and had personally appeared to conduct the prosecution against Mr. P.Uthayakumar on 11/12/2007.
20. Mr P.Uthayakumar had made a police report in the week just before his arrest on 13/12/07 against the Attorney General amongst other things that the Attorney General had made a criminally defamatory statement against him. (P.Uthayakumar).
21. The Attorney General had also maliciously caused Mr. P.Uthayakumar to be imprisoned for 514 days without trial and conviction. This is based on one of the nine grounds of P.Uthayakumar’s ISA detention being that P.Uthayakumar had led a peaceful protest at the office of the Attorney General protesting that the Attorney General had refused to prosecute cases of the local authorities demolishing hindu temples with impunity even at the average rate of one hindu temple demolished in every one week.
22. There was an open argument between the Attorney General and P.Uthayakumar in open court at the Shah Alam Sessions Court when the Attorney General alleged that Hindraf (and vis a vis P.Uthayakumar) were linked to the LTTE terrorists.
23. On page 27 of the notes of proceedings the learned Judge had ruled “Tangguhan tak dibenarkan atas alasan perubatan” despite a medical letter being produced on a medical check up in London (for a suspected rare heart disease).
24. On 28/9/2009 (pages 28 and 29 of the notes of proceedings) the learned Judge even denied an application for P.Uthayakumar to sit on the bar table as he had volumnious documents and photographs to cross examine on.
25. Despite an application pending in the High Court for a transfer of this matter to the High Court, the learned Judge had made the decision to proceed irrespective “memandangkan Notis Usul belum ditetapkan tarikh dan belum ada perintah” (page 30 of the Notes of evidence).
26. Despite the High Court Judge being on leave, on the very same day the learned Judge further rejected another application for an adjournment despite there being a formal application pending hearing in court for documents related to the “ethnic cleansing” in Kg. Medan which is the crux of the defence against P.Uthayakumar. (page 30 and 31 of the Notes of Evidence).
27. Again on the very same day the third application was made to adjourn proceedings in order to file a formal written application to recuse the Judge was again dismissed on the grounds “kes akan diteruskan untuk perbicaraan walaupun Notis Usul dan Notis Permohonan ada difailkan dan OKT akan failkan Notis Permohonan untuk disqualified Hakim. (page 31 of Notes of Proceedings).
28. Mr. P.Uthayakumar from the dock then made a four point application among others the disparity between the RM50,000.00 bail imposed by the Sessions Court Judge and the reduction to RM10,000.00 by the High Court Judge upon appeal. P.Uthayakumar submitted that in the Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II trial an adjourment was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge hearing the charge pending an appeal to the High Court. Despite the above this learned Sessions Court Judge decided that she would proceed with the hearing (page 33 of the Notes of Evidence).
29. Peguambela- “pohon kes ini ditangguhkan sehingga semakan difailkan. Mahkamah- “Tidak dibenarkan kes ini akan diteruskan sehingga permohonan diputuskan (page 34 of the Notes of Proceedings).
30. Peguambela -“Pohon kes ini ditangguhkan dan pohon prosiding digantung. Undertake the (to) file semakan by tomorrow Mahkamah- “tangguhan tak dibenarkan” (page 34 of the notes of evidence).
31. Uthayakumar’s lawyer Mr.N.Surendran then submitted that even the Attorney General did not apply for Uthayakumar’s International Pasport to be impounded but the Judge on her own accord and without hearing any submissions especially on P.Uthayakumar’s International Pasport impounded the same. Also cited was the authority of Metropolitan Properties where Lord Denming held on the “mere likelihood of biousness” principle in effect “where if the Judge still sat on the case his decision cannot stand”. Despite the above this learned Judge yet again dismissed P.Uthayakumar application Mahkamah- “Permohonan OKT untuk mengecualikan saya dari meneruskan perbicaraan ini adalah ditolak dan tidak dibenarkan (page 36 of the notes of evidence)
32. OKT “Pohon prosiding ditangguhkan sehingga keputusan di Mahkamah Tinggi”. “Akan failkan semakan pagi esok”.
33. At 4.56 p.m on 29/9/2009, Mr Manogar informed the court that the High Court had turned down Mr.P.Uthayakumar’s application and that an appeal would be made to the Court of Appeal and that a date had been set for the hearing of the Notis Permohonan at the High Court “Pohon tangguhan untuk dapatkan temujanji dengan CJA bagi mendapatkan stay”
34. On 30/9/09 “Pagi ini telah failkan notis Rayuan atas keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang menolak permohonan kami untuk semakan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen dan buat permohonan kepada YAA Mahkamah Rayuan dan pohon untuk bicara di Mahkamah ini ditangguh sehingga kelulusan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan.
Permohonan ini dibawah perbincangan YAA Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan atas nasihat Pendaftar, kami akan failkan satu Notis Usul dengan Perakuan Segera untuk penangguhan stay prosiding ini.
Memandangkan hal ini dan permohonan kami yang dibawa ke perhatian YAA Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, wajar Mahkamah ini menunggu untuk tangguhkan kes ini.
Dalam Kes Teoh Beng Hock, Mahkamah telah tunggu untuk keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan.
35. Mahkamah- “Tangguhan tidak dibenarkan dan kes akan diteruskan”.
36. Despite P.Uthayakumar asking for the List of Witnesses, Mahkamah- “Senarai saksi tak menjadi compulsory untuk dibekalkan, tak ada perintah untuk DPP serahkan senarai tersebut”.
37. When P.Uthayakumar asked for a copy of the document to be examine the learned Judge had prejudically remarked “OKT boleh mengambil masa the whole day untuk periksa dokumen. (page 42 of notes of proceedings).
38. Mahkamah- “soalan diteruskan” (page 43 of votes of proceedings.)
39. Keputusan- Bantahan pihak Pembela adalah ditolak. Artikel yang dikemukakan melalui Saksi Plaintif pertama adalah diterima dan dibenarkan untuk ditanda sebagai barang kes. (page 52 of the Notes of Proceedings).
40. On the issue of the admisibility of a document submitted to be not relevant by the defence the learned Judge decided “Setelah meneliti affidavit- afidavit dan hujahan yang dikemukakan, adalah diputuskan bahawa permohonan tertuduh untuk mendapatkan dokumen dibawah S51 (A) KAJ seperti dibawah paragraph a-h adalah tidak dibenarkan ditolak. (page 57 of the notes of proceedings).
41. Mahkamah- “Bantahan dibenarkan” saya cadangkan kamu tak tahu motif tendering dokumen ini ke dalam Mahkamah? “Soalan tak perlu dijawab” (page 70 of the notes of proceedings)
42. OKT- “ Sebahagian pembelaan kes menjurus mala fide polis dalam pendakwaan ini terhadap saya. Apakah sebab dokumen ini ditenderkan? Mahkamah “Soalan ini tak perlu dijawab”.
43. Mahkamah- “Permohonan tak dibenarkan” (at page 80 of the Notes of Proceedings.)
44. The said Judge’s earlier statement in open court that “she has to consult someone”, we humbly submit is fatal.
In the circumstances, with respect we humbly appeal that this Sessions Court Judge is recused from further hearing this matter and that this matter is transferred and heard by a High Court Judge especially as this trial involves matters concerning the general public interest and the whole world is watching.
Justice must not only be done but must manifestedly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
We seek your kind indulgence accordingly.
Thank You,
Your Faithfully
________________
cc : Tuan Pendaftar,
Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur
Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur By Hand
22, 23 &24/3/10 – Bicara (Case No 3-62-548-2007)
Timbalan Pendakwa Raya,
Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia,
Bahagian Pendakwaan,
Aras 7, Blok C3,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan, By Hand
62512 Putrajaya (Case No 3-62-548-2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment