{"id":1973,"date":"2010-02-19T17:31:15","date_gmt":"2010-02-19T09:31:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buletinonline.net\/v7\/index.php\/2010\/02\/anwar-the-victim-of-overzealous-prosecution\/"},"modified":"2010-02-19T17:31:15","modified_gmt":"2010-02-19T09:31:15","slug":"anwar-the-victim-of-overzealous-prosecution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/anwar-the-victim-of-overzealous-prosecution\/","title":{"rendered":"ANWAR-THE VICTIM OF OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTION"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I have been practising as a criminal lawyer for almost 16 years. I have  considerable experience defending accused persons who were being charged  for sexual related crimes. My experience tells me that the prosecution  will never charge a person for an offence of rape or sodomy if the  medical evidence is not favourable to them. It is almost an accepted  rule of practice or a legal norm, as far as the offence of rape or  sodomy is concerned, medical evidence operates as oxygen to the  prosecution.<\/p>\n<p>It seems to me that such a practice is no longer  adhered to in the current ongoing trial of Anwar Ibrahim. When the  accused person is Anwar Ibrahim the rule of game is suddenly and  drastically changed. When Anwar is charged the prosecution no longer  seems to gauge the strengths of its case on the available evidence they  have. When Anwar Ibrahim is tried the prosecution will, come what may,  happily proceed with the trial regardless whether it has fragile  evidence or no evidence at all against him !!<\/p>\n<p>The only crime  Anwar committed in this case is for having the name, Anwar Ibrahim.<\/p>\n<p>I  believe that if another person by the name of Ibrahim Anwar or any  other Ibrahims allegedly sodomised Saiful the prosecution would not  charge such a person when provided with the medical report prepared by  doctors in Pusat Rawatan Islam ( Pusrawi ) and Kuala Lumpur General  Hospital respectively.<\/p>\n<p>Both reports, as I was told by lawyers in  Anwar\u2019s legal team, contain a very damning evidence against the  prosecution in that they unequivocally state that there are no visible  signs of penetration of Saiful\u2019s anus. As far as the report of the Kuala  Lumpur General Hospital is concerned, it was duly signed by three  doctors. So what the prosecution have in their possession are the  reports certified by four doctors ( one from Pusrawi and three from KLGH  ) apparently dismissing the prosecution\u2019s theory that Saiful was ever  sodomised by Anwar.<\/p>\n<p>People may ask why the AG, despite such a  damning evidence against the prosecution, is still adamant, and not  withdraw the charge against Anwar?The reason is pretty obvious, that is  the accused person is Anwar Ibrahim. When Anwar Ibrahim is tried the  prosecution will not care even with the existence of a hundred medical  reports exonerating Anwar Ibrahim of any sexual offence.<\/p>\n<p>To the  layman, this question may crop in their mind. Is the medical evidence  really significant in Anwar\u2019s trial ? The answer to that is a resounding  yes. As I have indicated earlier the medical evidence is oxygen to the  prosecution\u2019s case. The prosecution case dies the moment oxygen  disappears or malfunctions.<\/p>\n<p>It is a rule of prudence, as the  lawyers call it, in any sexual related crimes, the evidence of the  complainant per se is legally insufficient . Such evidence must be  corroborated by other independent evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Translated into  Anwar\u2019s trial, Saiful\u2019s evidence alone is not sufficient to convict  Anwar. His evidence must be corroborated. Of course a corroboration is  not needed for all crimes. But in sexual offences, corroboration is  highly significant in order to support the factum ( act ) of the alleged  sodomy.<\/p>\n<p>Why corroborative evidence is necessary in sexual  related cases ? The legal practitioners say such evidence is needed  because of the nature of such offences. In any rape or sodomy case it is  relatively easy to allege that a crime has been committed by such and  such person but it is on the other hand difficult for any person who is  being charged to such offences to disprove such an allegation.<\/p>\n<p>We  can see clearly even before the court passes any verdict on Anwar,  judging from the media coverage which appeared in Utusan and other BN\u2019s  controlled media, Anwar is as good as being found \u201cguilty\u201d by these so  called juries. The media coverage was so vicious that one wonders  whether Anwar\u2019s, or for that matter, his family\u2019s dignity brings any  value to this irresponsible media.<\/p>\n<p>The law says if you accuse  somebody of committing a sodomy against you the law requires you to  furnish corroborative evidence to support your allegation. That is why  even in Islamic criminal law if a person is charged for sodomy, the  prosecution must bring four witnesses who really see the actual  penetration. That shows Islam also takes into account corroborative  evidence.<\/p>\n<p>And in Islam the standard of proof in sodomy case is  very high indeed that is the prosecution must prove its case beyond any  shadow of doubt, and the present standard of proof in civil law which is  only beyond reasonable doubt. Thus in Islam any iota of doubt must be  ruled in favour of the accused based on the maxim that \u201c the offence of  hudud is withdrawn whenever iota of doubt is present \u201d . Islam holds the  view that it is much wiser for a judge to err in acquitting 10 guilty  persons rather than to err in convicting even one innocent person !!<\/p>\n<p>In  sodomy , like a crime of rape, the essential element which needs to be  proven by the prosecution is the act of penetration itself. In Islamic  law the same element also needs to be established by the prosecution in  certainty.<\/p>\n<p>Now how is the prosecution able to prove the element  of penetration if they do not produce the medical reports\/evidence? And  how are the medical reports in Anwar\u2019s trial useful to prosecution if  they clearly say no visible signs of penetration to Saiful\u2019s anus. The  medical evidence is supposed to corroborate Saiful\u2019s evidence but  apparently in this case the same medical reports in fact exonerate Anwar  Ibrahim. The rule is so simple : no penetration no prosecution. But the  AG seems to hold the view that yes, no penetration but mind you we  still have persecution to do!!<\/p>\n<p>It is beyond question if Anwar is  tried under the Islamic law, the charge, as it is presently framed  against him, will never see the light of the day. Seeing the oral  testimony of Saiful so far one cannot avoid to jump to the conclusion  that it was a groundless or trumped up charge.<\/p>\n<p>The AG should  exhibit a high level of professionalism and integrity in the Anwar\u2019s  case. Intellectual honesty dictates that the prosecution should withdraw  the charge against Anwar Ibrahim. Period. To prosecute a person in the  absence of credible evidence is definitely tantamount to a prosecutorial  misconduct and wastage of public funds.<\/p>\n<p>The day that AG becomes  the tool of the crooked politicians should have passed after the  election tsunami in 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I have been practising as a criminal lawyer for almost 16 years. I have considerable experience defending accused persons who were being charged for sexual related crimes. My experience tells me that the prosecution will never charge a person for an offence of rape or sodomy if the medical evidence is not favourable to them. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"better_featured_image":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1973"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buletinonlines.net\/v7\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}