LOYARBERJURUS

Salam, In the past week I have the privilege of conducting a trial in the judge's chamber. Kawtim involved? Definitely not. What happened was that the judge was too ill to proceed hearing the case in open court. She can barely walk to the majestic chair that we lawyers, DPPs and civilians alike, bow everyday as a matter of respect when we hear the magic word "bangunggggg!". So the judge declared her chambers as open court. Conducting a criminal trial in chambers whereby the judge is restless and not in the best of health is neither pleasant nor dramatic. It's so peaceful and surely I can't raise my voice against joker witness although I wish I had done so, upon hearing the investigation officer replying with a standardized answer; "saya kurang pasti pula". In the end what transpired was a civilized trial with parties giving utmost respect to each other. What really concern me is the way the pressure (read: KPI) has forced officers of the court to give pr

RINGKASAN HUJAHAN RESPONDEN Dengan izin Yang Arif, Izinkan kami merujuk kepada Petisyen Rayuan Perayu bertarikh 16 Oktober 2009. ALASAN NO. 2, 4 DAN 6 DALAM PETISYEN RAYUAN Yang Arif Hakim bicara adalah betul dan tidak khilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang dalam memutuskan untuk melepaskan dan membebaskan Responden di akhir kes pendakwaan atas alasan Responden tidak mempunyai “milikan” terhadap dadah-dadah tersebut. Tiada keterangan positif bahawa ekshibit P13A adalah ketulan yang dimaksudkan telah dilihat dicampakkan oleh Responden. Berkenaan ekshibit P14A pula wujudnya keterangan yang tidak dicabar daripada saksi pendakwaan sendiri iaitu SP4 yang tidak tercabar sekaligus menimbulkan inferens yang munasabah bahawa P14A diletakkan oleh lelaki Indonesia bernama Hendra. Inferens ini menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap persoalan “milikan”. Gabungan keseluruhan keterangan menunjukkan keterangan gagal menunjukkan kaitan Responden dengan P13A dan P14