Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©The Star (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR: A High Court judge refused to grant a stay of execution for a pensioner convicted of raping an eight-year-old, saying that the feelings of the victim's family needed to be considered.

“If you are in the shoes of the family of the victim, how would you feel? He has been convicted by the Sessions Court and his sentence has been affirmed by High Court, (yet) you want him to fly free as a bird?” Justice Mohamed Apandi asked counsel S. Ranee who had applied for a stay of execution pending appeal.

The judge ordered Mat Saad Md Isa, 61, to serve his 19-and-a-half years' sentence for rape and four-and-a-half years' sentence for an indecent act from yesterday. The sentences are to run concurrently.

He said it was most unreasonable to grant a stay after he had upheld Mat Saad’s conviction and sentences for the offences committed in a house in Sentul in 2001.

“There is also insufficient information before me to make a judicial decision to exercise my discretion to grant a stay,” he said.

Besides, he said, Mat Saad's lawyer did not give special reasons or exceptional circumstances.

To this, Ranee said the court could consider her client’s age, that he was a first offender, his 27-year service record in City Hall, and that he had to support seven children.

Justice Mohamed then asked Ranee if the court should grant a stay just because her client was a first offender. “Justice is not only for the accused but also for the public and the family of the victim,” he said.

DPP Geethan Ram Vincent, objecting to the stay application, said bail was not an automatic process in an appeal against a ruling.

Dismissing the appeal, Justice Mohamed said there was no reason for him to disturb the findings made by the trial judge.

The judge said the right to counsel by Mat Saad was not prejudiced when his other lawyer was ordered by the trial judge not to attend hearing after he (the other lawyer) had allegedly disturbed the victim at her house.

He said he found the ruling by the trial judge for a screen to block the view of the accused from the victim when she testified in court to be reasonable due to her age.

“The victim had expressed fear when she saw the appellant. However, the screen did not stop his lawyer from observing the victim when she gave evidence,” he said.

On the sentence by the trial judge in 2002, Justice Mohamed said it was to send a correct message to the public and was according to the right principle of law.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed