murder 
Judge Mohamad Zabidin had asked if the police wanted him to personally talk to the IGP or the A-G’s Chambers on how to conduct cases.
Justice Zabidin had criticised the police , saying he was sick and fedup of the atitude of some of the police witnesses. He also criticised the prosecution for its shoddy works in adducing the mental and physical elements that are necessary to constitute a murder.
In discharging and acquitting the accused without calling for their defence, the judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case as it had not adduced evidence to link the accused to the crime. He said there was also no evidence to prove that the accused were even present at the place where the murder was alleged to have taken place.
The prosecution team was led by DPP Jamil Aripin and the accused were represented by Rafael Abdullah and K. Paramanathan.
The case involved a murder charge under s.302 of the Penal Code where the 8 accused were alleged to have jointly murdered M. Kumaravelan, 22, at Sakarapalay Muniswaran Temple in Seberang Prai on Aug 27, 2001.
Question arises as to whether our police investigators and DPPs are competent and knowledgeable in their works and skills required. This is not the first case of shoddy investigation and failure to adduce sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case. Too many cases were discharged without their defence been called for the failure of the police and DPP to forward the relevant evidence of a crime. What was required was the presence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
Maybe, it is necessary to sent all the DPPs back to law schools to learnt the basics of Criminal Law and Evidence. How did the DPPs passed the law exam? Did we graduate them based on the NEP and Quota System, or UNMO Agenda? Was meritocracy discriminating as enunciated by the Johor Mentri Besar?
Judge Mohamad Zabidin had asked if the police wanted him to personally talk to the IGP or the A-G’s Chambers on how to conduct cases.
Justice Zabidin had criticised the police , saying he was sick and fedup of the atitude of some of the police witnesses. He also criticised the prosecution for its shoddy works in adducing the mental and physical elements that are necessary to constitute a murder.
In discharging and acquitting the accused without calling for their defence, the judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case as it had not adduced evidence to link the accused to the crime. He said there was also no evidence to prove that the accused were even present at the place where the murder was alleged to have taken place.
The prosecution team was led by DPP Jamil Aripin and the accused were represented by Rafael Abdullah and K. Paramanathan.
The case involved a murder charge under s.302 of the Penal Code where the 8 accused were alleged to have jointly murdered M. Kumaravelan, 22, at Sakarapalay Muniswaran Temple in Seberang Prai on Aug 27, 2001.
Question arises as to whether our police investigators and DPPs are competent and knowledgeable in their works and skills required. This is not the first case of shoddy investigation and failure to adduce sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case. Too many cases were discharged without their defence been called for the failure of the police and DPP to forward the relevant evidence of a crime. What was required was the presence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
Maybe, it is necessary to sent all the DPPs back to law schools to learnt the basics of Criminal Law and Evidence. How did the DPPs passed the law exam? Did we graduate them based on the NEP and Quota System, or UNMO Agenda? Was meritocracy discriminating as enunciated by the Johor Mentri Besar?
No comments:
Post a Comment