|
©The
Star (Used by permission)
SHAH ALAM: The High Court here dismissed an application to
recall private investigator P. Balasubramaniam to give evidence in the Altantuya
Shaariibuu murder trial after hearing objections from all parties.
Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin rejected the motion filed by Karpal Singh, saying he
was of the view that such applications must be made by the prosecution or the
defence.
“Counsel holding a watching brief for the family, in my view, is excluded,” the
judge said after hearing preliminary objections from the prosecution and the
defence on Wednesday.
Justice Mohd Zaki, however, added that the court would exercise its discretion
to call or recall any witnesses should the need arise any time before the
decision was made.
Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief for the family of the slain
Mongolian woman, had also applied to summon Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri
Najib Tun Razak, Deputy Supt Musa Safri, lawyer Dhiren Rene Norendra and one DSP
Idris to testify as witnesses.
The veteran lawyer made this application citing public interest as a statutory
declaration (SD) dated July 1 made by Balasubramaniam, a private eye hired by
political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, had linked Najib to the murdered
Mongolian woman.
In a second SD filed on July 4, the private detective retracted the first sworn
document.
DPP Tun Abd Majid Tun Hamzah had raised a preliminary objection against the
motion saying the contents of the SD were hearsay and that Karpal Singh had no
locus standi to make the application.
The veteran lawyer replied that he agreed that the court need not accept such an
application if it were made by a third party, but added that he had the legal
position to do so being the counsel for the deceased’s family.
He cited an Indian case in which the father of a victim had made such an
application through the prosecution.
“I would think that the prosecution would support our application in the
interest of justice,” he said.
Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, counsel for Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, pointed out that in
English common law, it had always been the purview of the prosecution to decide
on which witnesses to call and what part of their testimony be used as credible
evidence.
“I don’t think our courts divert from that,” he said.
Abdul Razak’s counsel Wong Kian Kheong cautioned that in the event the court
were to allow the application, it would open the floodgates to other
applications from families of victims and turn public prosecutions into private
prosecutions.
Justice Mohd Zaki, in his decision, also distinguished the Indian case cited by
Karpal Singh from his application as the former was submitted through the
prosecution but the latter was not.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 304/2008
