Archive

Archive for September, 2011

Absence of All Jurisdiction: In Legal that Sublimes into the Cardinality of Being the Nothingness (Absence – Nihili) and Philosophy of Null Set Theory – Number 7 and 13 are The Prime Numbers for this case, number 7 and 13 were everywhere during the trial since then and I was born on July 13, 1972 (On Chaotic Ratio).

21.       Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

Prosecution

“43.     Tiada pendakwaan berkenaan dengan apa-apa kesalahan d bawah Akta ini atau mana-mana peraturan yang dibuat di bawah Akta ini boleh dimulakan kecuali oleh atau dengan keizinan bertulis Pendakwa Raya.”

 22.       Sepanjang prosiding perbicaraan di hadapan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur, pihak pendakwaan tidak mengemukakan izin pendakwaan secara bertulis dan ini adalah bercanggah dengan peruntukkan Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002. Ini dibuktikan dengan senarai ekshibit Jilid 2 Rekod Rayuan-izin pendakwaan tidak dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah dan ditanda sebagai ekshibit.

23.       Walaubagaimanapun setelah menerima Rekod Rayuan pada 5.5.2011, pihak Perayu mendapati bahawa salinan izin pendakwaan telah dimasukkan ke dalam Lampiran Dokumen (mukasurat 115 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1) dan ini merupakan kali pertama pihak Perayu melihat salinan izin pendakwaan tersebut.

24.       Terdapat kecacatan material pada izin pendakwaan tersebut di mana izin pendakwaan diberi oleh seorang timbalan pendakwaraya yang bernama Mazelan Jamaludin tetapi ditandatangani oleh seorang timbalan pendakwaraya bernama Nor Aizam.

25.       Adalah menjadi hujahan Perayu bahawa izin pendakwaan mengikut peruntukkan Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 adalah mandatori dan ketinggalan untuk mengemukakannya menjadikan prosiding perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut satu (dengan izin) ‘nullity’.

26.       Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kes Abdul Hamid v PP [1956] MLJ 231 (di mukasurat 3 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) Smith J membuat pemerhatian seperti berikut:

“There is an essential difference to my mind between a sanction and a consent. A prosecution can be sanctioned without any deep consideration of the particular case : full consideration is required for consent since “consent” is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side (Stround 3rd Ediiton vol 1 page 582). The sanction was therefore no evidence of consent.”

 27.      Pihak Perayu turut bersandarkan kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Lee Chwee Kiok [1979] 1 MLJ 45 (di mukasurat 2 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa prosiding adalah terbatal apabila tiada kebenaran untuk pertuduhan yang dipinda :

“The question is whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial on the amended charge without a fresh consent by the Public Prosecutor. As the matter is res integra I proceeded with the trial to save the public expense, the witnesses and jury being present in court. It will be observed that although the original and amended charges are two distinct offences, they are both created by the same section of the law viz. section 39B(1) and both carry the same penalty. Both require the consent of the Public Prosecutor under section 39B(3). The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor argued that the amendment was technical and as the Public Prosecutor had given his consent on the original charge he was at liberty to amend the charges in the manner he did. I do not think so. It was held in Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 231 that a consent to prosecute “is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side”. The Public Prosecutor has clearly exercised his mind in respect of the original charge when he gave his consent to prosecute some four months after the alleged offence. It was incumbent on him however to exercise the same degree of deliberation in respect of the amended charge. He has not done so. In Lim Seo v Regina [1962] MLJ 304 counsel was given sanction to prosecute undersection 379 of the Penal Code but he proceeded under section 381 of the Penal Code instead. It was held that counsel cannot depart from the specific authorisation of the Public Prosecutor. It seems to me that the same principles apply here. The facts of the case were fully before the Public Prosecutor at the time of giving his consent and he could have elected to proceed on the amended charge then. He did not do so. It would appear therefore that the Public Prosecutor has not given his consent to prosecute under the amended charge. That being so, the trial is a nullity on the authority of Lyn Hong Yap v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 226.”

http://anticyberforensics.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/my-written-submission-for-the-reversal-of-malicious-prosecution-and-recalcitrant-of-magistrate-malice-defeats-immunity-judicial-immunity-2/

ab·sence

[ab-suhns]

noun

1.

state of being away or not being present: I acted as supervisor in his absence. Your absence was noted on the records.
2.

period of being away: an absence of several weeks.
3.

failure to attend or appear when expected.
4.

lack; deficiency: the absence of proof.
5.

inattentiveness; preoccupation; absent-mindedness: absence of mind.
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English  < Middle French  < Latin absentia. See absent, -ia

Antonyms
1.  presence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absence

ab·sence  (bsns)

n.

1. The state of being away.
2. The time during which one is away.
3. Lack; want: an absence of leadership.
4. The state of being absent-minded; inattentiveness: absence of mind.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


absence [ˈæbsəns]

n

1. the state of being away
2. the time during which a person or thing is away
3.the fact of being without something; lack

[via Old French from Latin absentia, from absēns a being away]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absence

Nothing is no thing,[1] denoting the absence of something. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness,[1], is also an adjective, and an object as a concept in the Frege-Church ontology.

In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance.[1] Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[2] the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/the-generalized-hypothetical-analysis-the-ontology-of-eternity-and-nihilism/

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/chicken-and-egg-the-anthropic-cosmologically-causality-dilemma/

The Philosophy of Null Set Theory (Empty Set {}): The Cardinality of Being the Nothingness

Edit LinkSeptember 29, 2009 in Generalized Set Theory, The Anthropic Cosmological Principles
Tags: The Philosophy of Set Theory

The Mathematical Theory of Nothing

“The Universe, which, so elegant and self-contained fashionably explained in higher dimensions of mathematically topological spaces, is the creations out of nothingness. Indeed, the explanation demands, such diversification of “nothingness” in creativity. Whereas, the diversification of “nothingness” itself is creativity of God, is basically the fundamental of all forces and matters.” – Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Die mathematische Theorie von nichts

“das Universum, das, also elegant und selbständiges fashionably erklärt in den höheren Maßen der mathematisch topologischen Räume,  die Kreationen aus Nichtse heraus ist. In der Tat verlangt die Erklärung, solche Diversifikation “des Nichtses” in der Kreativität. Während,  die Diversifikation “des Nichtses” selbst Kreativität des Gottes ist, im Allgemeinen ist die Grundlage aller Kräfte und Angelegenheiten.”  – Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, Vereinigtes Königreich.

La théorie mathématique de rien

“l’univers, qui, si élégant et d’un seul bloc fashionably expliqué dans des dimensions plus élevées des espaces mathématiquement topologiques,  est les créations hors de néant. En effet, l’explication exige, une telle diversification d’”néant” dans la créativité. Considérant que,  la diversification du “néant” elle-même est créativité de Dieu, est fondamentalement le principe fondamental de tous les forces et sujets.”  – Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim, 2002, Cambridge, Royaume-Uni De.

*******************************************************************************************************

Abstract

The mathematical theory of nothing is the theory about nihilism, which the verdicts of quantum theory, general relativity theory and grand unified field theory have concluded that the universe as Non-Existence of the universe itself. The Universe, which, so elegant and self-contained fashionably explained in higher dimensions of mathematically topological spaces, is the creations out of nothingness. Indeed, the explanation demands, such diversification of “nothingness” in creativity. Whereas, the diversification of “nothingness” itself is creativity of God, is basically the fundamental of all forces and matters. For thousands of years, philosophers have tried to clarify, “Creator” and “Creations”, just like ancient cosmological argument about “Chicken and Egg”. The philosophies of eternity and the philosophies of nothingness rebut about the mathematical concept of energy and its equilibrium in the First Law of Thermodynamics. The law, which states that, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed” is absolutely twaddling. The concept of the energy equilibrium is the logic that defines energy as eternal, no beginning and no end. Metaphysically and ontologically speaking, the conceptual logic of Eternity and the conceptual logic of Nihilism (Creations), will always contradict each other, as mathematicians and scientists used the the concepts of both logic vice versa. Likely, the hypothetical analysis, that all sciences are either “Cosmology” or “Kama Sutra”. Cosmological mind or cosmological forces and matters that either will be used to define the structure of our universe, when scientists started to gain entertainment upon such vague, yet substantial evidence of the “Non-Existence of Beings” (The Universe) against “The Absolute Existence of Being” (The Creator). Most of them suffer from a form of amnesia. Thus, the mathematical logic of Eternity and the mathematical logic of Nihilism can be distinguished between. Meanwhile, the concept of energy equilibrium, which used before, will be replaced from conceptual “zero” as the point of equilibrium into an “Empty Set” as new “Absolute Point of Equilibrium” with respect to “The Absolute Static Point of Equilibrium of Universe”.

Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, and special words of thanks to Mick Mattis (of St. Leonards on Sea, Hastings, United Kingdom) for proof reading this Abstract and the whole thesis, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

Al-Quran Karim

cancelledout

From My Thesis:

For a statement P(x) that is false for every possible value of x, nothing within the universe can pass the elementhood test for the truth set of P(x), and so, therefore, this truth set must have no elements.

emptyset

Since the truth set of P(x) has no element, this result of

emptyelement

statement, which is always false.

Therefore,

Theorem 1:

Any theory T generated from this statement including basic arithmetical nihilism and  T will always contradict to almost all Physics Laws and Cosmological Principles.

(Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim , First Published January, 1992)

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

(Proof of this mathematical theorem will not be shown in this blog).

This Theorem is dedicated To:

M.J. Giles, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology, Ellison Building, The University of Northumbria, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

*******************************************************************************************************

Theorem 2:

“Time present and time past

The end precedes the beginning

And the beginning were always there

Before the beginning and after the end

And All is always now”.

(“Time”, By Mohamad Izaham Bin Mohamed Yatim, First Published September 6, 1991)

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

*******************************************************************************************************

Theorem 13:

“[N]othingness is the highest dimension of mathematically topological spaces.”

Mohamad Izaham Mohamed Yatim, “The Mathematical Theory of Nothing”, September 2002, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9EW United Kingdom.

*******************************************************************************************************

Abstrakte

Die mathematische Theorie von nichts ist die Theorie über nihilism, dem die Urteilssprüche der Quantentheorie, der allgemeinen Relativität Theorie und der großartigen vereinheitlichten Feldtheorie daß das Universum als Nicht-Bestehen des Universums selbst festgestellt haben. Das Universum, das, also elegant und selbständiges fashionably erklärt in den höheren Maßen der mathematisch topologischen Räume, die Kreationen aus Nichtse heraus ist. In der Tat verlangt die Erklärung, solche Diversifikation “des Nichtses” in der Kreativität. Während, die Diversifikation “des Nichtses” selbst Kreativität des Gottes ist, im Allgemeinen ist die Grundlage aller Kräfte und Angelegenheiten. Für Tausenden Jahre, haben Philosophen versucht, zu erklären, “Schöpfer” und “Kreationen”, gerade wie altes kosmologisches Argument über “Huhn und Ei”. Die Philosophien der Ewigkeit und die Philosophien des Nichtses widerlegen über das mathematische Konzept von Energie und von seinem Gleichgewicht im ersten Gesetz von Thermodynamik. Das Gesetz, das das angibt, “Energie machen weder wird verursacht ein, noch zerstört” twaddling absolut. Das Konzept des Energiegleichgewichts ist die Logik, die Energie definiert, wie ewig, kein Anfang und kein Ende. Metaphysisch und ontologically der Ewigkeit sprechen, die Begriffs-Logik und die Begriffs-Logik von Nihilism (Kreationen), widersprechen sich immer, wie Mathematiker und Wissenschaftler die Konzepte von beiden Logik umgekehrt verwendeten. Wahrscheinlich die hypothetische Analyse, daß alle Wissenschaften entweder “Kosmologie” oder “Kama Sutra” sind. Kosmologischer Verstand oder kosmologische Kräfte und Angelegenheiten, daß irgendein verwendet wird, um die Struktur unseres Universums zu definieren, als Wissenschaftler begannen, Unterhaltung nach solchem vagem zu gewinnen, dennoch überzeugender Beweis des “Nicht-Bestehens der Wesen” (das Universum) gegen “das absolute Bestehen des Seins” (der Schöpfer). Die meisten ihnen leiden unter einer Form von Amnesia. So können die formale Logik der Ewigkeit und die formale Logik von Nihilism bemerkenswert zwischen sein. Unterdessen wird das Konzept des Energiegleichgewichts, dem vor verwendete, von Begriffs”null” als der Punkt des Gleichgewichts in “leeren Satz” als neuer “absoluter Punkt des Gleichgewichts” in Bezug auf “den absoluten statischen Punkt des Gleichgewichts des Universums” ersetzt.

Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim und spezielle Wörter des Dankes Mick Mattis (von Str. Leonards auf Meer, Hastings, Vereinigtes Königreich) für Beweismesswert dieses abstrakte und die vollständige These, September 2002,  Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, CB3 9EW Vereinigtes Königreich.

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/the-philosophy-of-empty-set-cardinality-of-being-nothingness/

Nihili Algebra {}-Generated By Distributive Lattices in Null Set Theory (Hybridized Null Set Theory with Fuzzy Set Theory on The Application of Artificial Intelligence and Neural-Null-Fuzzy Systems)

http://themathematicaltheoryofnothing.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/nihili-algebra-generated-by-distributive-lattices-in-null-set-theory/

The Prime Number for this case are 13 and 7.

Basic Lists of Prime Numbers

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541, 547, 557, 563, 569, 571, 577, 587, 593, 599, 601, 607, 613, 617, 619, 631, 641, 643, 647, 653, 659, 661, 673, 677, 683, 691, 701, 709, 719, 727, 733, 739, 743, 751, 757, 761, 769, 773, 787, 797, 809, 811, 821, 823, 827, 829, 839, 853, 857, 859, 863, 877, 881, 883, 887, 907, 911, 919, 929, 937, 941, 947, 953, 967, 971, 977, 983, 991, 997, …

*****

List of Fibonacci numbers

The first 21 Fibonacci numbers Fn for n = 0, 1, 2, …, 20 are:

F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765

The sequence can also be extended to negative index n using the re-arranged recurrence relation

F_{n-2} = F_n - F_{n-1}, \,

which yields the sequence of “negafibonacci” numbers satisfying

F_{-n} = (-1)^{n+1} F_n. \,

Thus the complete sequence is

F−8 F−7 F−6 F−5 F−4 F−3 F−2 F−1 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8
−21 13 −8 5 −3 2 −1 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21

*****

“Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.” Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)

When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. State use of Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.

“… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

**

“The doctrine of judicial immunity originated in early seventeenth-century England in the jurisprudence of Sir Edward Coke. In two decisions, Floyd & Barker and the Case of the Marshalsea, Lord Coke laid the foundation for the doctrine of judicial immunity.” Floyd & Barker, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (1607; The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (1612) were both cases right out of the Star Chamber.

Coke’s reasoning for judicial immunity was presented in four public policy grounds:
1. Finality of judgment;
2. Maintenance of judicial independence;
3. Freedom from continual calumniations; and,
4. Respect and confidence in the judiciary.

The Marshalsea presents a case where Coke denied a judge immunity for presiding over a case in assumpsit. Assumpsit is a common-law action for recovery of damages for breach of contract. Coke then explained the operation of jurisdiction requirement for immunity:

. “[W]hen a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds iverso ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is not a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process…”

Although narrowing the availability of judicial immunity, especially in courts of limited jurisdiction, Coke suggested that there was a presumption of jurisdiction and that the judge must have been aware that jurisdiction was lacking.

Thus, questions of personam, rem and res jurisdiction are always a proper issue before the court to obviate the defense that the court had no way to know they lacked jurisdiction.

**

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

If a judge acts without subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is acting unlawfully, he/she has committed an unlawful interference with one’s person, property, or rights.

Is the judge who acts without subject-matter jurisdiction then anything but a common criminal?

And all orders and judgments issued by a judge who acts without subject-matter jurisdiction are, as a matter of law, void.

http://www.clr.org/smj.html

Think My Young Padawan, Think!… Not Ting Tong?! (If You Dare To Defeat Me)

Ranks of Jedi

Members of the order progress through four tiers of rank, at times referred to as levels:

  • Youngling: A Jedi Youngling is a child, a Jedi-in-training, learning to control the Force and wield a lightsaber. The title of “Youngling” is the first part of a Jedi training. Younglings were seen training with Jedi Grand Master Yoda in a scene from Attack of the Clones and when Anakin Skywalker turns to the dark side in Revenge of the Sith.
  • Padawan: A Youngling who successfully completes training then undergoes Padawan training under the tutelage of a Jedi Knight (or Jedi Master in some cases). These are also called “Apprentices” and “Padawan Learners”. As a rite of passage and the final test before the trials to knighthood, Padawans must build their own lightsabers. In the Old Republic, Padawans usually wore a hair braid on the right side of their head which was removed with a lightsaber upon attaining knighthood. They also served as commanders in the Clone Wars. The term Padawan appears to originate in Sanskrit and can be understood as “learner,” both in Sanskrit and by contemporary native speakers of Sanskrit-based languages. [1]
  • Jedi Knight: Disciplined and experienced, Jedi Knights become so only when they have completed “the trials” (final tests). This, the most common rank, is interchangeably referred to as “Jedi”, “Jedi Knight” and “Master Jedi” (although the latter only used by Younglings and Padawans when addressing Jedi Knights or above). The five tests are usually known as Trial of Skill, the Trial of Courage, the Trial of the Flesh, the Trial of Spirit, and the Trial of Insight or Knowledge.[2] In Return of the Jedi, Master Yoda gives his apprentice, Luke Skywalker, the trial of confronting Darth Vader for a second time so he might become a full-fledged Knight. Occasionally, performing an extraordinary (usually heroic) act can earn a Padawan learner Jedi status, such as when Obi-Wan Kenobi defeats the Sith Lord Darth Maul. By the time of the movies distinct battle classes were not necessary as the Republic had not seen war in over a thousand years, and the title of Knight was simply a rank once again.
  • Jedi Master: A Jedi Knight may become a Jedi Master after successfully training a Padawan learner to Knight status. Though this is the most common manner, there are other ways of attaining the rank. Also, “Master Jedi” is the common honorific.
  • Jedi Grand Master: Grand Master is usually the oldest, most experienced and best trained of all Jedi. A Grand Master is chosen by the Jedi council. In Star Wars, Yoda is the grand master. Jedi Master Mace Windu was next in line to become Grand Master until he was killed by Palpatine (Darth Sidious) in Revenge of the Sith.

Additional statures

  • High Council Member: A Jedi Master may be granted the further stature of a position on the Jedi High Council (known less formally as the ‘Jedi Council’). When a Council Member vacates his or her seat, the council looks for an exemplary Jedi Master to fill the empty position. Presiding Council Members elect prospective candidates when openings become available. According to the Dorling Kindersley guide to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, some members retained permanent positions on the council (like Yoda and Mace Windu), while the rest served limited terms, after which they stepped down and another member would be elected in their place. There have been occasional exceptions to the requirement that Jedi attain the Master rank prior to gaining a council seat, such as Anakin Skywalker and Ki Adi Mundi.
  • General: During the Clone Wars, many Jedi Knights and Masters were commissioned into the Grand Army of the Republic with the rank of General. Princess Leia addresses Obi-Wan as “General Kenobi” in the original film, reminding him of his service to her adoptive father, Senator Bail Organa.
  • Commander: The Padawan learners were also commissioned into the Grand Army of the Republic and were given this rank, officially outranking all clones but subordinate to their Jedi masters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi

My Written Submission to Reverse the Decision made by the Recalcitrant Magistrate on Devilishly, Mischievously Malicious Prosecution and Remedy by Removing the Recalcitrant Magistrate from His Office: Malice Defeats Immunity (Judicial Immunity is Not Absolute!) – Deputy Public Prosecutor can’t afford to reply my submission (not even on single line of utterance) because they are on self-defeating side

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR

 

RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 41- 21-2011 

ANTARA

 

MOHAMAD IZAHAM BIN MOHAMED YATIM                           …PERAYU

 

DAN

PENDAKWA RAYA                                                                        …RESPONDEN)

 

[berkenaan perkara Mahkamah Majistret di Kuala Lumpur

Kes Tangkap No:2-83-7119-2009]

 

Antara

 

Pendakwa Raya

 

Dan

 

Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim

 

HUJAHAN BERTULIS PIHAK PERAYU

 

Dengan izin Yang Arif Hakim,

Ini adalah hujahan bertulis pihak Perayu untuk rayuan terhadap keputusan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur yang menjatuhkan hukuman dan sabitan ke atas Perayu pada 25.2.2011 denda RM15,000.00 jika gagal bayar denda penjara 6 bulan di bawah Seksyen 5(2) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 bagi Kes Tangkap No.2-83-7119-2009 (kemudian daripada ini dirujuk sebagai “Kes Tangkap Tersebut”).

LATARBELAKANG KES:

1.         Perayu dihadapkan dengan pertuduhan seperti berikut:

Bahawa kamu pada 13/07/09 jam lebih kurang 6.00 petang di alamat ******************************, dalam Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, telah didapati memiliki sebanyak 106 klip video lucah yang disimpan di dalam Hard Disc jenis Hitachi Deskstar S/N R325559XK yang di bawah milikan kamu. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah seksyen 5(1)(a) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 5(2) akta yang sama”.

2.         Pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil 7 orang saksi untuk membuktikan kes pendakwaan iaitu:

2.1       SP-1 iaitu Insp. Mohd Razif b. Mohd Zaid I/16542

2.2       SP-2 iaitu Zanariah binti Ibrahim

2.3       SP-3 iaitu Mohanaraj Naidi Subbiah

2.4       SP-4 iaitu Mohamad Zamri bin Roslan

2.5       SP-5 iaitu Insp. Mohd Shah Rizal bin Sahabudin Shah I/17525

2.6       SP-6 iaitu Ainy Suhailah binti Yunus

2.7       SP-7 iaitu Insp. Siti Mazira binti Zakaria

3.         Ekshibit-ekshibit yang telah dikemukakan semasa perbicaraan dan ditanda di dalam Nota Keterangan :

3.1       P-1 – Borang Serah Menyerah (Borang D6)

3.2       P2(a), (b), (c), (d) – (n) – 7 DVC, 3 VCD, 2 Cd, 1 thumb drive dan hard disc

3.3       P3(a – m) – 13 keping DVD

3.4       P9Copy SP2

3.5       P11Quotation Baru

3.6       P12Surat Lawyer 1 mohon tangguh tarikh perbicaraan

3.7       P13Surat Lawyer 3 mohon hak penjagaan anak

3.8       P14Surat Lawyer 7

3.9       P15Surat Lawyer 7A2 contoh isteri derhaka yang nyata

3.10    P16(dalam softcopy)Surat lawyer 7A2 dokumen

3.11    P17(softcopy) surat lawyer 8 dokumen

3.12    P18Surat Lawyer 8 mohon tangguh tarikh perbicaraan

3.13    P19yearfocal – terdapat nama Saliza binti Ramli

3.14    P20S6301428.jpg

3.15    P21S6301429.jpg

3.16    P22S6301430.jpg

3.17    P23S6301431.jpg

3.18    P24 - S6301432.jpg

3.19    P25S6301433.jpg

3.20    P26S6301434.jpg

3.21    P27S6301435.jpg

3.22    P28S6301436.jpg

3.23    P29S6301437.jpg

3.24    P30S6301438.jpg

3.25    P31S6301439.jpg

3.26    P32S6301440.jpg

3.27    P33S6301441.jpg

3.28    P34 –  Dang Wangi Report D29694/2009

3.29    P35Laporan Analisa

3.30    P36Copy SP2

3.31    P37- Borang Senarai Geledah

4.         Ekshibit-ekshibit mengikut Rekod Rayuan bertarikh 13hb. Jun 2011 adalah seperti berikut:-

4.1       P-1 – Borang Serah Menyerah (Borang D6)

4.2       P2(a), (b), (c), (d) – (n) – 7 DVC, 3 VCD, 2 Cd, 1 thumb drive dan hard disc

4.3       P3(x1-x13) – 13 keping DVD

4.4       P4-Aku Mencintai Wahai Isteriku

4.5       P5-Kes Zina

4.6       P6- Puisi Untuk isteri Tersayang

4.7       P7-Quotation Total RM1,320,000.00

4.8       P-8-Quotation RM950,000.00

4.9       P-9-Quotation 3(i) RM1,450,000.00

4.10    P-10-Quotation 3 RM950,000.00

4.11    P11 – Quotation Baru RM950,000.00

4.12    P12 – Surat Mahkamah Tinggi (6.11.2004)

4.13    P13 – Surat Lawyer 1 (10.6.2003)

4.14    P14 – Surat Lawyer 3 (19.6.2003)

4.15    P15 – Surat Lawyers (19.6.2003)

4.16    P16 – Surat lawyer 7 (tidak disertakan tiada

dalam simpanan Mahkamah)

4.17    P17 – Surat Lawyer 7A2(tidak disertakan tiada

dalam simpanan Mahkamah)

4.18    P18 – Surat Lawyer 8(tidak disertakan tiada

dalam simpanan Mahkamah)

4.19    P18A-Surat Lawyer 8A(tidak disertakan tiada

dalam simpanan Mahkamah)

 

4.20    P19 – yearfocal

4.21    P20 – S6301428.jpg

4.22    P21 – S6301429.jpg

4.23    P22 – S6301430.jpg

4.24    P23 – S6301431.jpg

4.25    P24 – S6301432.jpg

4.26    P25 – S6301433.jpg

4.27    P26 – S6301434.jpg

4.28    P27 – S6301435.jpg

4.29    P28 - S6301436.jpg

4.30    P29 – S6301437.jpg

4.31    P30 – S6301438.jpg

4.32    P31 – S6301439.jpg

4.33    P32 – S6301440.jpg

4.34    P33 – S6301441.jpg

4.35    P34 – Laporan Polis Dang Wangi /029694/09

4.36    P35 – Laporan Analisa (Hard Disk Hitachi Desk Star)

4.37    P36 – Salinan Fotostat http://www.all4sure.com RM950,000.00

4.38    P37 – Borang Senarai Geledah

4.39    IDD1-Laporan Analisa

5.         Pada 14.9.2010 Perayu telah memfailkan permohonan agar Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur menarik diri daripada mendengar kes Tangkap Tersebut dengan disokong oleh  Afidavit Sokongan Perayu yang diikrarkan pada 14.9.2010 (kemudian daripada ini dirujuk sebagai “Afidavit Sokongan Tersebut”).

6.         Pada 21.9.2010 Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur telah menolak permohonan Perayu agar Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur menarik diri daripada mendengar kes Tangkap Tersebut.

7.         Pihak Perayu telah memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur tersebut.

8.         Pada 18.1.2011 setelah lima hari pendengaran rayuan ditetapkan, Yang Arif Hakim, Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 1 Kuala Lumpur telah menolak rayuan Perayu.

9.         Pihak Perayu telah memohon untuk memanggil 3 orang saksi pada peringkat kes pendakwaan untuk membangkitkan keraguan yang munasabah tetapi telah ditolak oleh Mahkamah sebanyak 2 kali dan hanya Perayu memberi keterangan secara bersumpah.

10.       Pihak Perayu juga telah turut mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen berikut untuk membangkitkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan iaitu:

10.1    Salinan Laporan Polis Jalan Patani Report No.5070/09

10.2    Salinan Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan, Kes Mal No. 07004-014.199/03, Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Balik Pulau, Pulau Pinang

10.3    Salinan Sijil Kelahiran Abu Muhammad Abdullah No. AN 95545

10.4    Salinan Laporan Polis Bayan Lepas Report: 3010/03

10.5    Salinan Wakalah Peguam Syarie bertarikh 19.5.03

10.6    Penyata Tuntutan Kes Mal No. 07004-055-0036/04

10.7    Surat daripada Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Balik Pulau bertarikh 11.1.2005 beserta Nota Prosiding bertarikh 8.3.2004

10.8    Perintah Perceraian bertarikh 9.3.2004

10.9    Surat Perakuan Perceraian bertarikh 23.9.2004

10.10  Surat Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Negeri Pulau Pinang bertarikh 16.4.2004

10.11  Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Pulau Pinang bertarikh 31.3.2004

10.12  ‘Certificate of Incorporation of Code Genius Limited’ bertarikh 7.12.2001

10.13  Laporan Analisa bertarikh 27.7.2009 ditanda sebagai “ID-D1”; dan

10.14  Salinan karbon Senarai Geledah (tiada catatan masa) bertarikh 13.7.2009

11.       Salinan dokumen-dokumen dikemukakan tanpa memprejudiskan hak Perayu yang telah membangkitkan bantahan terhadap Ekshibit-ekshibit “P-11” hingga “P-19” yang telah dibuat semasa kes pendakwaan.

12.       Pada 13.12.2010 apabila Perayu membuat permohonan agar kes ditangguhkan dengan mengemukakan otoriti bahawa rayuan terhadap keputusan Majistret menolak permohonan Perayu agar Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 menark diri daripada mendengar Kes Tangkap Tersebut perlu didengar terlebih dahulu, permohonan telah ditolak tanpa mengambilkira kes yang telah diputuskan dan dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah Majistret yang mengikat Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2.

13.       Pihak Perayu telah mengemukakan kes Mahkamah Rayuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) kes Rowstead Systems Sdn Bhd v. Bumicrystal Technology (M) Sdn Bhd [2005] 2 CLJ 471 (di mukasurat 471 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa penangguhan prosiding perlu dibenarkan apabila terdapat rayuan berkenaan keputusan Hakim yang menolak permohonan daripada menarik diri daripada mendengar kes tersebut.

Di muka surat 471, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan seperti berikut:

“As mentioned above, this case comes under the category of non-automatic disqualification. Hence the need to prove whether the element of bias exists. It has to be objectively decided, based on all the facts and circumstances of the case. But more important question to be asked is whether it is proper for such decision to be made by presiding judge against whom bias has been alleged? In other words, when a party alleges that a presiding judge is biased, and if the presiding judge himself decides he is not, would such decision not infringe the rule of natural justice in that “one should not be a judge in one’s own cause”. This, we think, is the crux of the instant case, even more so when the learned JC would have to decide the degree of bias that would be sufficient to affect his impartiality. In our judgment, this situation would come within the meaning of special circumstances.

 

We have taken into consideration the fact that in the event that a stay a proceedings was not granted and the learned JC be allowed to proceed with the hearing of this case, it would result in a waste of time and effort by all persons involved since if the Court of Appeal allows the appeal the whole proceedings conducted by the learned JC would have to be completely expunged. In the circumstances it would be more expedient to allow a stay of the proceedings until the hearing of the appeal has been completed.”

14.       Pada 13.12.2010 Perayu/Tertuduh di dalam akuan bersumpah telah memberi keterangan-keterangan seperti berikut:

14.1    Tertuduh tiada di tempat kejadian pada 13.7.2009. Tertuduh berada di Johor Bahru, Johor.

14.2    Tertuduh tidak menandatangani Senarai Geledah yang dikeluarkan pada 13.7.2009. Salinan Senarai Geledah tersebut tiada catatan masa.

14.3    Pada 4.11.2009 Tertuduh telah dipanggil oleh Pegawai Penyiasat (SP7) untuk hadir memberi keterangan di Balai Polis Ampang, Selangor.

14.4    Tiada ekshibit ditunjukkan oleh SP7. Tertuduh dipaksa menandatangani kertas kosong.

14.5    Hard disk (“P-2”) bukan kepunyaan Tertuduh. Tertuduh tidak pernah membeli cakera keras (“hard disk”) di Malaysia.

14.6    Tertuduh tidak tahu apa yang dirampas oleh SP7 pada 13.7.2009.

14.7    Tertuduh mempertikaikan analisa dan Laporan Analisa yang disediakan oleh Saksi Pendakwaan Pertama (SP1) kerana analisa tidak betul dan tidak mengikut piawaian antarabangsa yang diiktiraf oleh mahkamah-mahkamah lain di dunia. SP1 juga menyatakan beliau tidak buat analisis. Tiada imej forensik (‘forensic image’) dibuat oleh SP1. Integriti fail yang diekstrak oleh SP1 amat diragui. ‘Timestamp’ yang penting untuk pengesahan tarikh kewujudan fail tidak mengikut hukum alam. Masa tidak boleh berpatah balik. (‘Theory Relativity’)

14.8    Tertuduh tidak dipanggil untuk melihat kandungan P2.

14.9    DVD (ekshibit “P3a-P3m”) telah dibawa oleh Tertuduh ke Balai Polis Kepong dan seorang anggota polis bernama Kopral Azmi  telah mengira klip video yang berada di dalam ekshibit ” P3a-P3m” hanya berjumlah 82 klip video sahaja.

14.10  Cara penyimpanan ekshbit “P-2” tidak mengikut prosedur untuk (dengan izin) ‘electronic evidence’. Tiada (dengan izin) ‘casing’ disediakan oleh SP1.

14.11  Perkara yang menjadi perbincangan di antara Tertuduh dan SP2 mengenai ‘property’ berbeza dengan ekshibit “P-9”

14.12  Tertuduh hanya pernah bertemu dengan SP3 pada tahun 2007.

14.13  Tertuduh turut mempertikaikan setiap salinan dokumen cetakan komputer yang dikemukakan iaitu ekshibit-ekshibit “P-11” hingga “P-19” (ditender di Mahkamah dalam bentuk ‘softcopy’)   dengan salinan dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan di perenggan 6.2 hingga 6.11 Hujahan Bertulis Pihak Pembelaan.

14.14  Tiada gambar tempat kejadian dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah.

14.15  Laporan Forensik yang diterima hanya bertarikh 27.7.2009 dan bukan seperti Ekshibit “P-35” bertarikh 28.7.2009.

14.16 Pengadu asal bagi salinan Laporan Polis Jalan Patani Report No. 5070/09 dikenali oleh Saksi Pendakwaan ke-enam (SP6) dan laporan polis dibuat untuk menganiaya SP6.

15.       Semasa pemeriksaan balas Perayu telah menafikan kesemua isu yang telah dibangkitkan oleh Pendakwaraya. Semasa pemeriksaan semula Perayu telah mengulangi fakta-fakta yang dinyatakan semasa pemeriksaan utama.

16.       Pada 24.12.2010 apabila kes ditetapkan untuk sambung bicara bagi kes Pembelaan dan sepina kepada saksi turut dicatitkan tarikh yang sama, waran tangkap dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah kerana dikatakan tarikh sambung bicara sebenarnya pada 23.12.2010.

17.       Pada 6.1.2011 tarikh yang ditetapkan untuk Sebutan waran tangkap, waran tangkap telah dibatalkan dan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 telah menolak permohonan pihak Perayu untuk memanggil 2 orang saksi pembelaan dan menetapkan kes untuk hujahan bertulis pada 18.1.2011.

18.       Pada 17.1.2011 Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 1 telah menolak rayuan Perayu dan kes ditetapkan untuk sebutan di hadapan Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 untuk Perayu melantik peguambela dan Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 telah menetapkan kes untuk hujahan bertulis pada 7.2.2011.

19.       Pihak Perayu menyediakan hujahan bertulis ini tanpa memprejudiskan hak pihak Perayu untuk membangkitkan isu bahawa tiada Nota-nota Keterangan untuk prosiding pada 19.10.2010, 13.12.2010, 23.12.2010, 6.1.2011 dan 18.1.2011 dibekalkan oleh Mahkamah di akhir kes pembelaan dan ini jelas bertentangan dengan peruntukan Seksyen 265, 266, 267,268 dan 433 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (Akta 593).

20.       Walaubagaimanapun apabila pihak Perayu menerima Alasan Penghakiman dan Rekod Rayuan pada 5.5.2011 pihak Perayu mendapati Nota-nota Keterangan untuk prosiding pada  19.10.2010, 13.12.2010 dan 6.1.2011 telah dibekalkan di peringkat rayuan ini dan ini jelas tidak mengikut peruntukan Seksyen 265, 266, 267,268 dan 433 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (Akta 593).

 

HUJAHAN PIHAK PERAYU

21.       Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

Prosecution

“43.     Tiada pendakwaan berkenaan dengan apa-apa kesalahan d bawah Akta ini atau mana-mana peraturan yang dibuat di bawah Akta ini boleh dimulakan kecuali oleh atau dengan keizinan bertulis Pendakwa Raya.”

 

22.       Sepanjang prosiding perbicaraan di hadapan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur, pihak pendakwaan tidak mengemukakan izin pendakwaan secara bertulis dan ini adalah bercanggah dengan peruntukkan Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002. Ini dibuktikan dengan senarai ekshibit Jilid 2 Rekod Rayuan-izin pendakwaan tidak dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah dan ditanda sebagai ekshibit.

23.       Walaubagaimanapun setelah menerima Rekod Rayuan pada 5.5.2011, pihak Perayu mendapati bahawa salinan izin pendakwaan telah dimasukkan ke dalam Lampiran Dokumen (mukasurat 115 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 1) dan ini merupakan kali pertama pihak Perayu melihat salinan izin pendakwaan tersebut.

24.       Terdapat kecacatan material pada izin pendakwaan tersebut di mana izin pendakwaan diberi oleh seorang timbalan pendakwaraya yang bernama Mazelan Jamaludin tetapi ditandatangani oleh seorang timbalan pendakwaraya bernama Nor Aizam.

25.       Adalah menjadi hujahan Perayu bahawa izin pendakwaan mengikut peruntukkan Seksyen 43 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 adalah mandatori dan ketinggalan untuk mengemukakannya menjadikan prosiding perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut satu (dengan izin) ‘nullity’.

26.       Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kes Abdul Hamid v PP [1956] MLJ 231 (di mukasurat 3 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) Smith J membuat pemerhatian seperti berikut:

“There is an essential difference to my mind between a sanction and a consent. A prosecution can be sanctioned without any deep consideration of the particular case : full consideration is required for consent since “consent” is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side (Stround 3rd Ediiton vol 1 page 582). The sanction was therefore no evidence of consent.”

 

27.      Pihak Perayu turut bersandarkan kepada kes Public Prosecutor v Lee Chwee Kiok [1979] 1 MLJ 45 (di mukasurat 2 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa prosiding adalah terbatal apabila tiada kebenaran untuk pertuduhan yang dipinda :

“The question is whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial on the amended charge without a fresh consent by the Public Prosecutor. As the matter is res integra I proceeded with the trial to save the public expense, the witnesses and jury being present in court. It will be observed that although the original and amended charges are two distinct offences, they are both created by the same section of the law viz. section 39B(1) and both carry the same penalty. Both require the consent of the Public Prosecutor under section 39B(3). The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor argued that the amendment was technical and as the Public Prosecutor had given his consent on the original charge he was at liberty to amend the charges in the manner he did. I do not think so. It was held in Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 231 that a consent to prosecute “is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side”. The Public Prosecutor has clearly exercised his mind in respect of the original charge when he gave his consent to prosecute some four months after the alleged offence. It was incumbent on him however to exercise the same degree of deliberation in respect of the amended charge. He has not done so. In Lim Seo v Regina [1962] MLJ 304 counsel was given sanction to prosecute undersection 379 of the Penal Code but he proceeded under section 381 of the Penal Code instead. It was held that counsel cannot depart from the specific authorisation of the Public Prosecutor. It seems to me that the same principles apply here. The facts of the case were fully before the Public Prosecutor at the time of giving his consent and he could have elected to proceed on the amended charge then. He did not do so. It would appear therefore that the Public Prosecutor has not given his consent to prosecute under the amended charge. That being so, the trial is a nullity on the authority of Lyn Hong Yap v Public Prosecutor [1956] MLJ 226.”

28.       Di dalam kes ini pihak Pendakwaan perlu membuktikan setiap intipati (‘ingredients’) pertuduhan berkaitan seksyen 5(1) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 yang dikenakan terhadap Perayu/Tertuduh iaitu;

(1)       bahawa Perayu/Tertuduh mempunyai milikan ekslusif pada setiap masa yang material iaitu pada 13-7-2009 jam lebih kurang 6.00 petang di alamat ********************************, dalam Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, 106 klip video lucah yang disimpan di dalam Hard Disc jenis Hitachi Deskstar S/N R325559XK;

dan

(2)       kandungan yang telah disahkah kesahihan dan integriti kandungannya melalui analisa forensik yang mengikut piawian forensik antarabangsa dan ianya mengandungi 106 klip video tersebut adalah lucah.

29.       Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes PP v. Chung Wan Li [2005] 8 CLJ 501 bahawa (di mukasurat 504 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu):

“I am of the view that the submission of the learned DPP in respect of the 1st ground comprising the 1st to the 3rd points is without merit. The charge preferred against the accused under s. 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 (“the Act”) requires proof of two essential ingredients:

 

(a) the accused was in exclusive possession at the material time, ie, 3p.m. on 18 November 2002 of the 18 obscene film’s in the form of VCD; and

 

(b) that the 18 film’s are of obscene material.

30.       Pihak Perayu juga merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes PP v. Lee Swee Sing [2009] 1 CLJ 320 bahawa (di mukasurat 324 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu):

“[5] Bagi membuktikan satu kes prima facie dibawah s. 5(1)(a) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002, pihak pendakwaan hendaklah membuktikan bahawa:

 

(a) Responden mempunyai milikan terhadap VCD dan DVD lucah yang dirampas;

 

(b) tiada sebarang keraguan tentang identiti barang-barang kes yang dirampas pada hari kejadian dengan barang-barang kes yang dikemukakan di dalam mahkamah; dan

 

(c) kesemua VCD dan DVD yang dirampas mengandungi adegan lucah (“obscene material”).

31.       Pihak Perayu juga merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes PP v. Kok Seong Yoon [2010] 5 CLJ 77 bahawa (di mukasurat 79 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu):

“The Charge

 

[8] The charge preferred against the respondent under s. 5(1) of the 2002 Act requires proof of two main ingredients ie, that:

 

(i)   the respondent at the material time was in possession of the 65 obscene films in the form of DVD; and

 

(ii) that the 65 films (DVDs) are obscene.

Isu Milikan Eksklusif Pada Setiap Masa Yang Material

32.       Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes PP v. Chung Wan Li [2005] 8 CLJ 501 bahawa (di mukasurat 504 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu):

“I am of the view that the submission of the learned DPP in respect of the 1st ground comprising the 1st to the 3rd points is without merit. The charge preferred against the accused under s. 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 (“the Act”) requires proof of two essential ingredients:

 

(a) the accused was in exclusive possession at the material time, ie, 3p.m. on 18 November 2002 of the 18 obscene film’s in the form of VCD; and

 

(b) that the 18 film’s are of obscene material.

Pihak Perayu juga merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes PP v. Lee Swee Sing [2009] 1 CLJ 320 bahawa (di mukasurat 324 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu):

“[5] Bagi membuktikan satu kes prima facie dibawah s. 5(1)(a) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002, pihak pendakwaan hendaklah membuktikan bahawa:

 

(a) Responden mempunyai milikan terhadap VCD dan DVD lucah yang dirampas;

 

(b) tiada sebarang keraguan tentang identiti barang-barang kes yang dirampas pada hari kejadian dengan barang-barang kes yang dikemukakan di dalam mahkamah; dan

 

(c) kesemua VCD dan DVD yang dirampas mengandungi adegan lucah (“obscene material”).

Pihak Perayu juga merujuk kepada keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes PP v. Kok Seong Yoon [2010] 5 CLJ 77 bahawa (di mukasurat 79 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu):

“The Charge

 

[8] The charge preferred against the respondent under s. 5(1) of the 2002 Act requires proof of two main ingredients ie, that:

 

(i)   the respondent at the material time was in possession of the 65 obscene films in the form of DVD; and

 

(ii) that the 65 films (DVDs) are obscene.

33.       Apa yang boleh difahamkan daripada kes PP v. Lee Swee Sing, hanya si tertuduh berada di gerai haram tersebut sepanjang masa dan si tertuduh kelihatan melayan pelanggan dan ketika serbuan dibuat sewaktu si tertuduh berada di gerai haram tersebut, terdapat VCD dan DVD yang dikatakan lucah di gerai haram tersebut. Di peringkat pendakwaan ini, untuk membuktikan intipati ini, pihak pendakwaan tidak perlu membuktikan pemilikan dan pemunyaan sebenar premis tersebut dan DVD tersebut, cukup sekadar membuktikan pemilikan eksklusif. Pemilikan eksklusif tidak sama dengan pemilikan sebenar atau pemilikan fizikal.

34.       Di dalam kes PP v. Kok Seong Yoon, pemilikan eksklusif pada setiap masa yang material telah dibuktikan dengan cara berikut, iaitu:

“[9] Having read the appeal record and the written submission of the appellant and having heard both parties, I am in agreement with the learned deputy public prosecutor that the element of possession has been proved through the prosecution witnesses SP1, 2 and 3 who were members of the raiding party.

 

[10] The 65 DVDs alleged to be obscene were found under the counter of the premises and at the material time of the raid, the respondent was alone in the premises manning the counter. He attempted to flee when SP1 identified himself as a police officer.

 

[11] The facts of this case are similar to Mohamed Ibrahim v. PP [1962] 1 LNS 100 HC wherein the appellant was found to be in possession of 65 copies of the book “Tropic of Cancer”. The impugned books were found under the counter of his shop. The appellant in Mohamed Ibrahim (supra) was employed to manage the sale of books and though an attempt was made to absolve himself of knowledge as he could not read English, nevertheless the court held that the inference was irresistible that the 65 copies found in the shop for the purpose of being sold and that the appellant was the person in charge of selling of the books in the shop was in possession of them and in possession of them for purposes of sale. He also failed in his argument that knowledge was negated by his ignorance of the English language as the court held that he could have obtained the services of an English – speaking clerk in ordering the books.

 

[12] In this case, there was the uncontroverted evidence of SP1 and SP3 that the 65 DVDs were found under the counter and the respondent was found at the time of raid, behind this counter. Knowledge can also be inferred from the fact that he attempted flight when SP1 identified himself as a public officer. Therefore, viewed in its totality the prosecution had proved the element of possession.

 

[13] There is no cause for the adverse inference to be invoked as it is trite that the calling of witnesses is at the discretion of the prosecution and the burden is on the prosecution throughout to prove its case. I find no gap here, neither can it be said that there was any suppression of evidence.

 

[14] Therefore the learned magistrate had erred in holding that the element of possession was not proved and in invoking the adverse presumption.”

35.       Apa yang boleh difahamkan dari kes PP v. Kok Seong Yoon, ketika serbuan dibuat, si tertuduh berada keseorangan dan sedang menjaga kaunter di dalam premis yang diserbu tersebut, dan DVD yang dikatakan lucah tersebut dijumpai di bawah kaunter tersebut. Di peringkat pendakwaan ini, untuk membuktikan intipati ini, pihak pendakwaan tidak perlu membuktikan pemilikan dan pemunyaan sebenar premis tersebut dan DVD tersebut, cukup sekadar membuktikan pemilikan eksklusif. Pemilikan eksklusif tidak sama dengan pemilikan sebenar atau pemilikan fizikal.

 

36.       Pihak Perayu telah Berjaya mewujudkan satu keraguan yang munasabah daripada keterangan saksi-saksi pihak pendakwaan sendiri iaitu Saksi Pendakwaan Kelima dan Saksi Pendakwaan Ketujuh (Pegawai Penyiasat) kerana mengikut kedua-dua saksi, Perayu/Tertuduh tiada di tempat kejadian pada 13.7.2009.

Isu Perayu Tiada di tempat Kejadian dan Pembuktian Milikan melalui Saksi Pakar SP1

37.       SP1 memberi keterangan semasa pemeriksaan utama seperti berikut:

“Selain itu, untuk dapatkan maklumat pengadu bersabit report itu dan barang kes yang saya terima iaitu unit HD R32559SK Hitachi” (mukasurat 2 Nota Keterangan).

Selain daripada itu SP1 turut memberi keterangan seperti berikut:

Hard disc dekstar dibaca dengan fastblock. Saya akan buka dari tarikh semakan. Ada senarai video, R3255559SK” (mukasurat 7 Nota Keterangan).

38.       Pihak Perayu telah membangkitkan bantahan mengenai cara pembuktian milikan yang dilakukan oleh SP1 :

OKT   : Saya bantah untuk tunjuk gambar. Ia tidak berkaitan dengan charge. Charge untuk bahan lucah. Possession cannot be proved by him. Dia esktrak saja.”

(mukasurat 15 Nota Keterangan).

 

39.       Walaubagaimanapun Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 telah menolak bantahan pihak Perayu dan membenarkan pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan ekshibit “P-2” berdasarkan Nota Keterangan (mukasurat 19 Nota Keterangan):

Mahkamah   : Ia untuk pembuktian milikan hard disk ini samada ia milik kamu atau tidak.

            DPP                : It belongs to the investigation

            Mahkamah    : Benarkan

40.       Pihak Perayu ingin menekankan di sini walaupun SP4 dipanggil sebagai saksi pendakwaan tetapi tiada satu pun keterangan beliau turut diambilkira oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur bagi membuktikan kes pendakwaan melampaui keraguan yang munasabah.

41.       SP4 telah memberi keterangan-keterangan seperti berikut semasa pemeriksaan utama dan pemeriksaan balas:

Pohon untuk SP1 membuka hard disk P2

-       Surat Mahkamah Tinggi (P12) – tuntutan hak dana Abu Mohd Abdullah Mohd Izaham

-       SP4 tidak pernah terima.

-       Surat lawyer 3 (P13) – permohonan hak jaga anak bertarikh 3 Jun-

 

SP4 tidak pernah terima. Dalam kes hak penjagaan anak, En. Izaham adalah Plaintiff bukan Defendan. Dia yang memohon pada masa itu untuk dapatkan hak penjagaan anak. Tapi dalam surat ini nyatakan “Saya adalah Defendan”.

 

Saya pernah bersua dengan OKT. Beliau ada kes di Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Pulau Pinang pada tahun 2004 yang selesai pada 2007. Beliau memohon untuk hak penjagaan anak-anak pada masa itu.”

 

(mukasurat 47 Nota Keterangan)

 

“C        : Pernah jumpa ke?

J          : Sebelum ini tak pernah jumpa di mana-mana.

C         : Mula bertugas?

J          :Mula bertugas 1 Julai 2009.

C         :Sebelum ini?

J          :Sebelum ini tahun 2004 saya berada di Putrajaya.”

 

(mukasurat 49 Nota Keterangan)

 

C         : Kalau peguam mewakili anakguam, surat menyurat dibuat sendiri atau peguam?

J          : Kalau diwakili peguam, surat menyurat dibuat oleh peguam.

C         : Sebelum ada peguam adakah saya buat apa-apa surat?

J          : Tak pernah Nampak dalam fail mahkamah setelah disemak dalam fail.”

 

(mukasurat 50 Nota Keterangan)

 

42.       Pihak Perayu telah membangkitkan bantahan terhadap ekshibit-ekshibit “P-12”, “P-13”, “P-14”, “P-15”, “P-16” ,“P-17” dan “P-18”tetapi ditolak oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2:

 

“OKT   : Saya bantah. Dokumen tidak wujud.

Mahkamah    : Ia sudah dikemukan tarikh lepas dan diterima sebagai ekshibit.

DPP                : We are not tendering through this witness, we are tendering whatever inside the hard disk by the forensic who found the evidence.”

 

(mukasurat 48 Nota Keterangan)

43.       Walaupun pihak Perayu telah diberi peluang untuk memeriksa balas untuk isu milikan tetapi prosedur yang betul telah tidak diterangkan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 berdasarkan Nota Keterangan (mukasurat 29 Nota Keterangan):

Mahkamah   : Adakah anda ingin cross untuk possession.

            C(OKT)          : Boleh.

            M                     : Kalau hendak Tanya teruskan. Tidak ada time limit. Do you want to cross on possession?”

44.       Pihak Perayu telah membangkitkan bantahan dari awal bahawa Perayu tiada di tempat kejadian tetapi Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 menyatakan bantahan perlu dibuat kemudian selepas SP5 memberi keterangan dan mengikut keterangan SP5 hanya seorang wanita dan dua kanak-kanak dilihat beliau semasa serbuan :

“OKT              : Saya bantah sebab saya tiada di situ masa itu.

Mahkamah    : Bantah kemudian. Ini dia bagi tahu alamat tempat raid.”

(Tiada bukti waran geledah dan gambar tempat kejadian)

 

(mukasurat 52 Nota Keterangan)

DPP    : It is nothing to forensic

OKT    : Bantah dokumen ini kerana dokumen ini tidak dibuat mengikut analisis yang betul oleh pakar forensic semasa saksi SP1. Dimana masa dibuka saya tidak berada di tempat dibuka dan saya tidak mengesahkan kandungannya.

Mahkamah    : Bantahan direkod.

(mukasurat 69-70 Nota Keterangan)

“Saya lihat ada 2 orang kanak-kanak. Dan saya lihat sebelah kiri ada 2 bilik tidur dan satu bilik bacaan. Pemeriksaan dilakukan dalam bilik bacaan tersebut, saya lihat Insp. Mazira telah merampas satu unit hard disc di rak buku ititu Hitachi Desktar. No. Siri R32559XK”

 

Satu salinan diberi kepada penama.

 

(mukasurat 53 Nota Keterangan)

C         : Pada 13/7/2009 tarikh masuk itu pukul berapa?

J          : Jam 6.30 petang.

C         : Masa itu Nampak tak saya di kawasan itu?

J          : Tak Nampak

 

(mukasurat 54 Nota Keterangan)

45.       Keterangan dari SP6 mengesahkan bahawa tiada pengecaman tempat kejadian dibuat dan tiada gambar ditunjukkan kepada SP6 sebagai bukti milikan cakera keras (“hard disk”) di dalam rumah atau tempat kejadian :

 “Pada 13/7/2009, ada polis datang ke rumah. Saya tak ingat siapa. Ada polis lelaki dan perempuan membuat pemeriksaan dan seingat saya polis ambil CD dan satu thumbdrive.”

(mukasurat 59 Nota Keterangan)

“(Saksi dirujuk dengan hard disk P2a) dan diminta untuk membandingkan nama-nama senarai yang dirampas dalam Borang Geledah – ia tidak sama dengan nombor siri pada Borang Geledah. Saya tak tahu.”

DPP    : Saya hanya hendak saksi bacakan sahaja nombor siri pada hard disk itu.

46.       SP5 iaitu pegawai yang terlibat semasa geledah dan SP7 iaitu Pegawai Penyiasat sendiri mengesahkan Perayu/Tertuduh tiada di tempat kejadian pada 13.7.2009. Oleh yang demikian milikan secara fizikal tidak dibuktikan langsung (rakaman video prosiding perbicaraan pada 19.10.2010).

47.       Tambahan lagi sekiranya Mahkamah yang Mulia ini meneliti Nota-nota Keterangan dan Alasan Penghakiman  Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 bertarikh 2.3.2011, nombor siri bagi cakera keras (‘hard disk’) yang dirujuk adalah berlainan dan berbeza-beza :

 

Keterangan SP1:

 

“Selain itu, untuk dapatkan maklumat pengadu bersabit report itu dan barang kes yang saya terima iaitu unit HD R32559SK Hitachi” (mukasurat 2 Nota Keterangan).

Hard disc dekstar dibaca dengan fastblock. Saya akan buka dari tarikh semakan. Ada senarai video, R3255559SK” (mukasurat 7 Nota Keterangan).

Selepas analisa dan jumpa video lucah P2A, sebagai juru analisa saya buat report polis tentang milikan videoklip lucah dalam Hitachi Desktar A1 (P2A). Saya masih boleh cam report saya. [Saksi dirujuk report]Ia adalah report saya.”

            Saksi dirujuk satu report dan diakui.

Keterangan SP6:

Saya dah kata saya tak setuju. Saya tidak tahu hal-hal computer ini.

Mahkamah    :           Bacakan No. siri pada hard disk itu untuk tujuan perbandingan dengan yang ada dalam senarai geledah.

No. Siri adalah SNR 32559XK”

(Mukasurat 59-60 Nota Keterangan)

 

Keterangan SP7 :

 

Dan telah merampas satu hard disk jenama Destar no. siri RX 3559 XK”

 

(Mukasurat 70 Nota Keterangan)

48.       Pohon Mahkamah yang Mulia ini merujuk mukasurat 295 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2 no siri di dalam report tersebut S/N: R32559XK bukan seperti keterangan yang diberikan oleh SP1 pada mukasurat 7 Nota keterangan. Ini menunjukkan bahawa terdapat keraguan yang munasabah terhadap ekshibit “P-2”.

49.       Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur turut memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan bahawa Perayu/Tertuduh adalah pemilik ekshibit “P-2” memandangkan terdapat satu klip video dalam ekshibit “P-2” iaitu dollahbest.

50.       Sebenarnya klip video dollahbest yang dimaksudkan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 di dalam alasan penghakimannya,  tidak pernah wujud sama sekali kerana tiada di dalam senarai klip video yang ditayangkan di Mahkamah berdasarkan Nota Keterangan prosiding perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut pada 7.6.2010, 8.6.2010 dan 29.7.2010.

51.       Adalah dihujahkan juga bahawa pihak Pendakwaan telah gagal membuktikan premis tempat kejadian kerana tiada gambar-gambar tempat kejadian dikemukakan oleh pihak Pendakwaan. Di samping itu, tiada rajah kasar disediakan oleh Pegawai Penyiasat (SP7). Walaupun pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil SP3 untuk memberi keterangan tetapi gagal memberi lokasi tempat kejadian yang tepat dan tempat kejadian tidak dikenalpasti (mukasurat 40 Nota Keterangan). Selain itu premis tempat kejadian adalah rumah sewa yang turut berada di dalam kawalan SP3 yang sudah tentu mempunyai akses kepada premis tersebut. Oleh yang demikian bukan Perayu/Tertuduh sahaja ada akses kepada premis tersebut (dinafikan oleh Perayu/Tertuduh). Oleh yang demikian tempat kejadian tidak dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan. Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur tidak menganalisa secara mendalam keterangan SP3 yang tidak membuktikan tempat kejadian dan hanya menerima keterangan SP3 kerana SP3 mengenali Perayu/Tertuduh.

52.       SP3 di dalam pemeriksaan balas hanya memberi keterangan seperti berikut:

“C        :           How many unit?

J          :           I’m not sure.”

53.       SP7 mengesahkan tiada gambar tempat kejadian diambil :

“Q        :13.07.2009. Ada bawa jurukamera?

A         :Tidak ada”

(mukasurat 76 Nota Keterangan)

54.       Sekali lagi pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya v. Goh Hoe Cheong [2006] MLJU 0468 (di mukasurat 0471 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana K N Segara J memutuskan bahawa apabila tiada gambar dan pelan kasar tempat tertuduh ditahan di ‘baggage assembly area” maka terdapat keraguan di dalam kes pendakwaan.

55.       Di dalam kes kita pada hari ini, jika dilihat pada Borang Senarai Geledah  yang mesti diisi di tempat dan masa pemeriksaan, ianya merujuk kepada No. Repot 5070/09 Balai Jalan Patani, tempat/bangunan yang diperiksa ialah ******** ********* ********** ***********  Kuala Lumpur (Premis tersebut), nama penghuni atau sesiapa yang hadir iaitu Ainy Suhailah binti Yunus (Penghuni tersebut), nama pegawai polis yang hadir semasa pemeriksaan iaitu Insp. Mohd Shah Rizal, Insp Siti Mazira bt Zakaria dan D/Kpl Nora (Pegawai Polis tersebut), pada tarikh 13-7-2009 dan masa yang tidak disebut (Tarikh dan Masa tersebut), barang yang dijumpai adalah seperti yang tertera di dalam Borang Senarai Geledah tersebut. Ini adalah terkandung di dalam Borang Geledah yang diberikan kepada penama pada 13.7.2009. Walaubagaimanapun Borang Geledah yang dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah pada 19.10.2010 adalah berbeza kerana ada masa dicatatkan. Pihak Perayu telah membangkitkan bantahan berkenaan perbezaan di antara Borang Geledah yang dikeluarkan pada 13.7.2009 dan Borang Geledah yang dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah pada 19.10.2010.

56.       Di antara ketiga-tiga Pegawai Polis tersebut yang hadir untuk pemeriksaan di Bangunan tersebut pada Tarikh tersebut, Insp. Mohd Shah Rizal bin Sahabudin Shah telah dipanggil oleh pihak pendakwaan sebagai SP5 untuk memberi keterangan mengenai penggeledahan tersebut.

57.       SP5 ketika pemeriksaan utama telah memberi keterangan (di mukasurat 46 – 47 Nota Keterangan) bahawa:

“Pada 13-7-2009, saya terima arahan daripada ketua bahagian saya iaitu ASP Kamarudin untuk beri bantuan kepada pegawai penyiasat dari Pulau Pinang iaitu Insp. Siti Mazira untuk membuat rampasan dan pemeriksaan. Saya dan Insp. Mazira telah sampai di alamat *************************************, Kuala Lumpur. Saya dan Insp. Mazira telah sampai di alamat tersebut dan Insp. Mazira telah ketuk pintu rumah beberapa kali dan keluar seorang wanita. Insp. Mazira telah perkenalkan diri sebagai pegawai kanan polis dengan menunjukkan kad kuasa kepada wanita tersebut. Wanita tersebut dikenali sebagai Aini Suhailah binti Yunus. Kemudian kami masuk ke dalam rumah untuk buat pemeriksaan setelah menerangkan tujuan kehadiran kami bersama saya Insp. Siti Mazira dan seorang anggota perempuan iaitu Kopral Nora. Saya lihat ada 2 orang kanak-kanak. Dan saya lihat sebelah kiri ada 2 bilik satu bilik tidur dan satu bilik bacaan. Pemeriksaan dilakukan dalam bilik bacaan tersebut, saya lihat Insp. Mazira telah merampas satu unit hard disc di rak buku iaitu Hitachi Deskstar. No. Siri R32559XK, satu unit thumbdrive Data Traveller, juga di rak buku, 2 unit CD, 3 unit VCD dan 7 unit DVD dalam bilik tersebut. Dalam bilik tersebut juga saya lihat satu CPU dan monitor yang mana CPU tersebut dalam keadaan tidak bertutup dengan casing dan tiada sambungan wayar ke monitor atau power. Saya anggap ia tidak berfungsi. Lepas membuat pemeriksaan saya lihat Insp. Mazira telah buat rampasan ke atas barang-barang yang saya sebut tadi dan telah disenaraikan dalam senarai bongkah. Senarai bongkah dibuat oleh pegawai penyiasat dan lihat ia ditandatangani pemilik rumah iaitu Aini Suhailah. Satu salinan diberi kepada penama. Kemudian rampasan telah diambil oleh pegawai penyiasat. Saya nampak barang itu dirampas oleh Insp. Mazira sebab saya ada di belakang beliau. Suasana cerah kerana rampasan dibuat waktu siang. Barang kes sentiasa dalam kawalan Insp. Siti Mazira. Saya masih boleh camkan hard disk P2a dan P2b itu berdasarkan nombor siri. (Saksi dirujuk hard disc dan thumbdrive P2a dan P2b – dicamkan SP5). Hanya satu jenis hard disc sahaja yang ditemui. Pemeriksaan dilakukan hanya dalam bilik bacaan sahaja dan tiada apa-apa yang berlaku.”

58.       SP5 ketika pemeriksaan balas telah memberi keterangan (di mukasurat 47 – 49 Nota Keterangan) bahawa, antaranya:

“Saya diminta bantuan daripada Insp. Mazira yang menyiasat bersabit laporan Polis Jalan Patani Report 5070/09.”

 

“Saya hanya dimaklumkan untuk bantuan tentang bersabit kes itu.”

 

“Saya diminta untuk beri bantuan pemeriksaan dan rampasan oleh Insp. Kamarudin kepada Insp. Siti Mazira bersabit Patani Report.”

 

“Pada 13-7-2009 masuk jam 6.30 petang.”

 

“Tak nampak si tertuduh masa itu di kawasan itu.”

 

“Semasa masuk buat pemeriksaan Insp. Mazira telah perkenalkan diri dengan tunjukkan kad kuasa polis, waran tiada.”

 

“Masa masuk dalam rumah, nampak satu wanita dan 2 orang kanak-kanak.”

 

“Saya membantu Insp. Mazira untuk membuat pemeriksaan rumah.”

59.       Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa melalui Borang Senarai Geledah dan keterangan SP5, dapat disimpulkan bahawa Perayu/Tertuduh di dalam kes kita pada hari ini tiada di dalam Premis tersebut pada Tarikh tersebut pada jam 6.30 petang.

60.       Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa merujuk kepada dokumen di perenggan 6.14 tiada catatan mengenai masa di dalam Borang Senarai Geledah tidak dimasukkan. Ini berlainan dengan Ekshibit “P-37” dan ini menunjukkan bahawa Borang Geledah telah diubahsuai.

61.       Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa masa di dalam kertas pertuduhan dan di dalam keterangan SP5 tidak sama. Tiada penerangan mengenainya daripada SP5. Begitu juga tiada penerangan mengenainya daripada SP7.

62.       SP6 telah dipanggil untuk pemeriksaan utama hanya disuruh membaca sehelai kertas yang didakwa sebagai borang geledah oleh pihak pendakwaan. Tiada pengecaman yang dibuat dengan SP6 berkenaan ketiga-tiga anggota polis yang datang ke premis tersebut pada 13.7.2009.

63.       Borang Senarai Geledah yang disediakan oleh SP7 telah gagal mematuhi kehendak peruntukan Seksyen 36(1) dan (2) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 kerana tiada senarai lengkap klip video yang dirampas. Seksyen 36(1) dan (2) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

 

36. Notis penyitaan

 

36. (1) Jika apa-apa penyitaan dibuat di bawah Bahagian ini, Pegawai Penguat Kuasa atau pegawai polis yang membuat penyitaan itu hendaklah menyediakan suatu senarai tiap-tiap filem, bahan publisiti filem, buku, dokumen atau benda lain yang disita dan tempat filem, bahan publisiti filem, buku, dokumen atau benda lain itu telah dijumpai dan hendaklah menandatangani senarai itu.

 

(2) Senarai yang disediakan mengikut subseksyen (1) hendaklah diserahkan dengan serta-merta kepada penghuni tempat atau premis di mana filem, bahan publisiti filem, buku, dokumen atau benda lain yang disita itu dijumpai.

64.       Pihak Perayu ingin merujuk kepada kes Kalidasan A/L Manikam lawan Pendakwaraya Rayuan Jenayah No. 41-44A-2009 (Mukasurat 1 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) di mana Yang Arif Hakim Yaacob bin Haji Md. Sam telah memutuskan bahawa timbul keraguan apakah sebenarnya judul-judul filem yang perayu dipertuduhkan sebagai memilikinya apabila identiti VCD dan DVD yang dirampas gagal dibuktikan tanpa keraguan oleh pihak pendakwaan.

65.       SP7 telah dipanggil untuk pemeriksaan utama oleh Timbalan Pendakwaraya menyatakan Perayu/Tertuduh tiada di tempat kejadian.

66.       Ada anggota polis lain yang memasuki premis tersebut pada masa material tetapi tidak dipanggil kerana berdasarkan keterangan SP5 semasa pemeriksaan utama:

“Kemudian kami masuk ke dalam rumah untuk buat pemeriksaan setelah menerangkan tujuan kehadiran kami bersama saya Insp. Siti Mazira dan seorang anggota perempuan iaitu Koperal Nora.”

(mukasurat 46 Nota Keterangan)

67.       Oleh itu, Pihak Perayu memohon Mahkamah menggunapakai Seksyen 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 di mana saksi ini sekiranya dipanggil akan memudaratkan kes pendakwaan walaupun beliau perlu dipanggil untuk pengesahan perbezaan Borang Geledah yang dikeluarkan pada 13.7.2009 dan Borang Geledah yang dikemukakan di Mahkamah pada 19.10.2010.

68.       Bagi membuktikan elemen milikan, pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil saksi-saksi SP1, SP2, SP4 dan SP6.

69.       Di dalam kes ini Perayu/Tertuduh masih lagi membangkitkan bantahan terhadap setiap dokumen lain yang dikatakan diekstrak oleh SP1 dan dalam bentuk ‘softcopy’ (Ekshibit-ekshibit “P-11”, P-12”, “P-13”, “P-14, “P-15”, “P-16”, “P-17”, “P-18”, “P-19”, “P-20”, “P-21”, “P-22, “ P-23”, “P-24” P-25”, “P-26”, “P-27”, “P-28”, “P-29”, “P-30”, “P-31”, “P-32” dan “P-33” mukasurat 16,17 Nota Keterangan) yang tiada kaitan langsung dengan pertuduhan dan tidak termasuk di dalam lingkungan definisi “filem” sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Seksyen 3 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002.

70.       Pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil semula SP1 untuk membuktikan fakta bahawa komputer yang digunakan oleh SP1 untuk mencetak salinan dokumen-dokumen cetakan komputer adalah di dalam kawalan dan jagaan beliau. Walaubagaimanapun, ianya tetap memudaratkan kes pendakwaan kerana semasa pemeriksaan balas SP1 memberi keterangan bahawa tiada buku log (buku daftar akitiviti seliaan peralatan komputer forensik) dan tiada sijil mengikut peruntukan Seksyen 90A Akta Keterangan 1950 dikemukakan untuk menunjukkan aktiviti-aktiviti yang dilakukan oleh SP1 melalui penggunaan komputer di pejabat beliau. Ini menyebabkan terputusnya rantaian bukti dan rantaian kawalan barang bukti.

Mengikut Buku “Guide To Computer Forensics and Investigations”, Third edition, oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinnger and Christopher Steuart, di mukasurat 276 :

Reporting

 

To complete a forensics disk analysis and examination, you need to create a report. Before Windows-based forensics tools were available, this process required copying data from a suspect drive and extracting the digital evidence manually. The investigation then copied the evidence to a separate program, such as a word processor, to create a report. File data that couldn’t be read in a word processor – datbases, spreadsheets, and graphics, for example-made it difficult to insert nonprintable characters, such as binary data into a report. Typically, these reports weren’t stored electronically because investigators had to collect printouts from several different applications to consolidate everything into one large paper report.

 

Newer Windows-based forensics tools can produce electronic reports in a variety of formats, such as word processing documents, HTML Web pages, or Acrobat PDF files. These are the subfunctions of the reporting functions :

 

  • Log Reports
  • Report generator

 

As part of the validation process, often you need to document what steps you took to acquire data from a suspect drive. Many forensics tools, such as FTK, ILook and X-Ways Forensics, can produce a log report that records activities in a variety of formats. The following tools are some that offer report generators that display bookmarked evidence :

 

  • EnCase
  • FTK
  • ILook
  • X-Ways Forensics
  • ProDiscover

 

The log report can be added to your final report as additional documentation for the steps you took during the examination, which can be useful if repeating the examination is necessary. For a case that requires peer review, log reports confirm what activities were performed and what results were obtained from the original analysis and investigation.”

71.       Pihak Perayu bersandarkan kepada kes Pendakwa Raya v. Goh Hoe Cheong [2006] MLJU 0468 kes Mahkamah Tinggi (di mukasurat 0474 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana K N Segara J membuat keputusan seperti berikut:

There was no witness from MAS and/or the authority managing KLIA called by the prosecution to prove the aspect of physical checking-in of the bags of passengers on flight MH020, particularly, the purported check-in of bags P6 and P23 by the 1st and 2nd accused, as well as the bag of Seok Hann(SP10). Therefore, the computer generated documents, namely, the baggage tags P6A, P23A and the respective baggage claim tags P16A and P31A, cannot be admitted in evidence unless S 90A Evidence Act, 1950 is complied with by the prosecution. No certificate was tendered to the Court signed by a person who either before or after the production of the documents by the computer was responsible for the management of the operation of that computer, or for the conduct of the activities for which that computer was used. In the circumstances I hold that P6A, P23A, P16A and P31A are inadmissible in evidence.”

 

72.       Di dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Ong Cheng Heong [1998] 6 MLJ 678, kes Mahkamah Tinggi (di mukasurat 694,695 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu), Vincent Ng J telah memutuskan bahawa sijil diperlukan untuk pengemukaan dokumen cetakan komputer.

73.       Di dalam kes ini pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil SP2 yang mengemukakan satu salinan dokumen yang tidak berkaitan dengan pertuduhan (Ekshibit “P-9mukasurat 34 dan 35 Nota Keterangan). Pihak Perayu telah membangkitkan bantahan terhadap pengemukaan salinan dokumen tersebut kerana tiada kaitan dengan pertuduhan dan mengikut keterangan SP2 semasa pemeriksaan balas, dokumen asal telah dimusnahkan kerana polisi syarikat. Mustahil jika arahan ketua syarikat tersebut untuk melupuskan semua dokumen dan salinan yang berkaitan tetapi masih terdapat satu salinan yang tersimpan yang boleh digunakan untuk perbicaraan ini. Pihak  Timbalan Pendakwaraya hanya bergantung kepada Seksyen 65(1)(c) Akta Keterangan 1950 sebagai peruntukkan untuk penerimaan keterangan sekunder sebagai bukti tanpa membuktikan elemen-elemen kritikal yang dengan berkaitan pemusnahan dokumen asal dan tidak memanggil ketua SP2 yang mempunyai kuasa mengeluarkan arahan pemusnahan untuk memusnahkan dokumen asal dan tiada keterangan mengenai kaedah yang digunakan untuk memusnahkan dokumen asal tersebut. Saksi-saksi yang berkaitan dengan proses pemusnahan juga tidak dipanggil beserta dengan mesin yang digunakan untuk memusnahkan dokumen tersebut tidak dibawa ke mahkamah. Di samping itu SP2 tidak mempunyai kepakaran tulisan tangan dan tandatangan yang digazzettekan oleh kerajaan dan sudah pastinya bukan seorang pakar tandatangan untuk mengenalpasti tandatangan yang terdapat di atas salinan dokumen tersebut. Sekiranya perbandingan dibuat dengan dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Pendakwaan di Mahkamah melalui SP1 terdapat perbezaan yang ketara di mana dokumen yang ditender di Mahkamah tiada tandatangan mana-mana pihak dan kandungan juga berbeza. SP2 juga mendakwa salinan yang dikemukakan juga merupakan dokumen asal yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu. (Mohon Mahkamah yang mulia ini melihat rakaman CRT masa SP2 di mana pendakwaraya menyatakan berkenaan Seksyen 65(1)(c) Akta Keterangan 1950 dengan jelas tetapi sengaja tidak direkodkan oleh Majistret di dalam Nota keterangan.)

74.       Di dalam kes Kum Wah Sdn Bhd v. RHB Bank Bhd [2009] 9 MLJ 490 kes Mahkamah Tinggi (di mukasurat 498 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu), di mana Azian J memutuskan bahawa keterangan seorang pakar tandatangan yang tidak digazettekan mengikut undang-undang tidak boleh diterima:

“Based on their qualifications and experiences, I am more inclined to accept that PW4 is more qualified to give evidence in respect of whether the signatures on Exhs ‘D4’, ‘D5’ and ‘D6’ are forgery. DW6 may have been the director general of the Malaysian Chemistry Department but he was never gazette as a document examiner in the government service. He said ‘I am not a document examiner. I have never produced a technical report. Yes, a technical report can only be produced by a gazetted document examiner. As such I am of the considered opinion that PW4 is more qualified and experienced to give testimony in respect of signatures on the three documents mentioned.”

   

75.       Seksyen 65(1)(c) Akta Keterangan 1950 perlu dibaca bersama dengan Seksyen 45 Akta yang sama untuk keterangan pakar diambil untuk pengesahan tandatangan di atas dokumen tersebut.

76.       Dengan ini adalah dihujahkan bahawa salinan Ekshibit “P-9” yang ditender melalui SP2 tidak boleh diterima masuk sebagai dokumen ekshibit pendakwaan kerana tidak dibawa masuk melalui pembuatnya.

77.       Ini jelas bertentangan dengan Seksyen 90 dibaca bersama Seksyen 90A Akta Keterangan 1950 yang memperuntukkan bahawa apabila pembuat dokumen tidak dipanggil, satu sijil pengesahan perlu dikeluarkan dan tiada sebarang tindakan diambil oleh pihak pendakwaan untuk mematuhi kehendak-kehendak peruntukan-peruntukan undang-undang di atas.

           

78.       Untuk kes-kes jenayah, undang-undang keterangan terbaik (‘the best evidence rule’) adalah keterangan primer dan tiada Seksyen 65(1)(c) Akta Keterangan 1950 digunapakai bagi kes-kes jenayah. Oleh sebab itu Perayu ingin menyokong hujahan dengan prinsip yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes  Wong Choon Mei & Anor V. Dr. Kuldeep Singh & Anor [1985] 2 MLJ 373 (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) (di mukasurat 376 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan sekiranya Seksyen 65 (1)(c) Akta Keterangan 1950 hendak digunapakai oleh mana-mana pihak, pihak tersebut telah mengambil semua langkah untuk mencari dokumen asal dan sekiranya dokumen asal telah musnah atau hilang, orang yang bertanggungjawab menjaga dokumen asal tersebut perlu mengesahkan fakta mengenai kemusnahan atau kehilangan dokumen asal tersebut. Pohon Mahkamah yang Mulia ini merujuk rakaman video perbicaraan bagi pengesahan hujahan pihak pendakwaan berkenaan Seksyen 65(1)(c) Akta Keterangan 1950.

 

Seah SCJ memutuskan seperti berikut:

“In short, before secondary evidence could be received the condition laid down in section 65(1)(c) viz. the original (the 4 X-rays) has been destroyed or lost, must be satisfactorily proved by admissible evidence, like calling the officer in charge of the X-ray Record Office. If the officer was not available then his absence should be properly accounted for. In my opinion, it is highly undesirable to allow the 1st respondent, who was being sued by the appellant and who might be regarded as an interested party, to give hearsay, evidence that the 4 X-Rays had been lost or misplaced. His testimony might be treated as tainted. A fortitiori, it might even be rejected on the ground of hearsay. This strict rule was reiterated by Lord Tenterden in Vincent v Cole 173 ER 1151:

 

“I have always acted (perhaps more so than other judges) most strictly on the rule; that what is in writing shall only be proved by the writing itself. My experience has taught me the extreme danger of relying on the recollection of witnesses, however, honest, as to the contents of a written instrument; they may be so easily mistaken that I think the purposes of justice require the strict enforcement of the rule”. 

79.       Ekshibit “P-9” yang dikemukakan oleh pendakwaan melalui SP2 hanya salinan fotostat, bukan cetakan komputer dan SP2 bukan pembuat dokumen tersebut yang begitu diragui kebolehterimaannya sebagai ekshibit. Walaubagaimanapun salinan Ekshibit “P-9” tersebut diterima sebagai eksibit oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2.

80.       Salinan Ekshibit “P-9” yang dikemukakan oleh SP2 tidak boleh diterima sebagai keterangan dokumentar oleh Mahkamah berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang tersebut di atas.

81.       Di dalam kes ini juga pihak Perayu telah berjaya mengemukakan dokumen untuk membuktikan bahawa ekshibit “P-9” yang ditender melalui  SP2 tidak berkaitan dengan pertuduhan (Ekshibit “P-9mukasurat 34 dan 35 Nota Keterangan). Pihak Perayu telah membangkitkan bantahan terhadap pengemukaan salinan dokumen tersebut kerana tiada kaitan dengan pertuduhan dan mengikut keterangan SP2 semasa pemeriksaan balas, dokumen asal telah dimusnahkan kerana polisi syarikat.

82.    Tiada definisi untuk ‘milikan’ di dalam Akta Penapisan Filem 2002. Oleh yang demikian, pihak Pembelaan merujuk kepada satu kes yang diputuskan oleh Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC di dalam kes Pendakwaraya lawan Sim, Odita, Muhammad Architects Sdn Bhd [2008] 3 CLJ 623 (di mukasurat 5 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Mahkamah perlu merujuk kepada definisi untuk milikan di dalam kes-kes yang telah diputuskan. Di dalam kes ini responden telah dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan apabila pihak pendakwaan gagal membuktikan milikan secara fizikal perisian yang melanggar hakcipta oleh responden.

Di dalam kes tersebut Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC memutuskan seperti berikut:

The word “possession’ is not defined in the Copyrights Act 1987 and therefore it is pertinent to refer to judicial decisions involving criminal charges to guide us to define the word “possession’. Thus, it was the contention of the defence that prosecution has to establish physical possession of the alleged infringing programs by the accused. The prosecution failed to prove actual physical possession of the alleged infringing copies of computer programs, as evidence was before the court that the premises of the accused was not for the sole usage of the accused company but also shared among the other companies mentioned above. This by itself, in my view, is sufficient to sustain the order of acquittal.           

 

83.       Pihak Perayu berhujah lanjut mengenai isu ini di mana daripada Nota Keterangan tersebut, amat jelas saksi awam SP4 mengesahkan tiada surat-surat yang ditunjuk oleh pihak pendakwaan diterima oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Pulau Pinang (Ekshibit P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, P17, P18, P19 dan muka surat 42, 43, 44 dan 45 Nota Keterangan) untuk membuktikan surat-surat yang dikatakan diekstrak oleh SP1.

84.       Fakta ini seterusnya telah disahkan oleh saksi pendakwaan ketujuh iaitu Pegawai Penyiasat (SP7) bahawa Ekshibit P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, P17, P18 dan P19 (rakaman video perbicaraan pada 19.10.2010) tiada di dalam rekod Mahkamah Syariah. Oleh yang demikian Ekshibit P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, P17, P18 dan P19 tidak seharusnya diterima sebagai ekshibit kerana tiada fakta mengesahkan kewujudan ekshibit-ekshibit tersebut.

85.       Perayu semasa memberi keterangan semasa pemeriksaan utama kes pembelaan telah mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen daripada Mahkamah Syari’ah untuk menunjukkan percanggahan yang wujud bagi ekshibit “P-12”, “P-13”, “P-14”, “P-15”, “P-16”, “P-17”, “P-18” dan “P-19” tetapi Mahkamah tidak menanda setiap satu dokumen yang dikemukakan oleh Perayu sebagai ekshibit sebagaimana mengikut peruntukkan Seksyen 173(j)(iii) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah.

86.       Tambahan lagi di dalam Kes Tangkap Tersebut, Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur telah menerima sebagai bukti setiap dokumen lain yang dikatakan diekstrak oleh SP1 dan dalam bentuk ‘softcopy’ (Ekshibit-ekshibit “P-11”, P-12”, “P-13”, “P-14, “P-15”, “P-16”, “P-17”, “P-18”, “P-19”, “P-20”, “P-21”, “P-22, “ P-23”, “P-24” P-25”, “P-26”, “P-27”, “P-28”, “P-29”, “P-30”, “P-31”, “P-32” dan “P-33” mukasurat 16,17 Nota Keterangan) yang tiada kaitan langsung dengan pertuduhan dan tidak termasuk di dalam lingkungan definisi “filem” sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Seksyen 3 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002. Walaubagaimanapun bantahan telah dibangkitkan oleh Perayu.

87.       Ekshibit-ekshibit “P-11”, P-12”, “P-13”, “P-14, “P-15”, “P-16”, “P-17”, “P-18”, “P-19”, “P-20”, “P-21”, “P-22, “ P-23”, “P-24” P-25”, “P-26”, “P-27”, “P-28”, “P-29”, “P-30”, “P-31”, “P-32” dan “P-33” mukasurat 16,17 Nota Keterangan yang berbentuk e-mail dikemukakan kepada Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur melalui SP1 tidak mengikut kaedah forensik analisa e-mail kerana tiada keterangan bagaimana  analisa e-mail tersebut dibuat dan tidak berdasarkan piawaian “Daubert” yang  dihujahkan dengan lebih lanjut berkenaan kaedah forensik yang dilakukan oleh SP1 untuk membuktikan milikan cakera keras ekshibit “P-2”.

SP1 ketika pemeriksaan utama memberi keterangan seperti berikut:

“Keputusan analisa, saya dapati beberapa document, email, gambar dan beberapa video yang terdapat di dalam P2(a) atas nama OKT, gambar keluarga dan video clip lucah…”

 

(mukasurat 3 Nota Keterangan)

Mengikut “Guide To Computer Forensics and Investigations, 3rd Edition oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Philips, Frank Enfinger, dan Christopher Steuart di mukasurat 468 :  

“E-mail evidence has become an important part of many computing investigations, so computer forensics investigators must know how e-mail is processed to collect this essential evidence. In addition, with the increase in e-mail scams and fraud attempts with phishing or spoofing, investigators need to know how to examine and interpret the unique content of e-mail messages.

 

            As a computing investigator, you might be called on to examine a phishing e-mail to see whether it’s authentic.”

      

88.       Berkenaan isu bahawa pengemukaan dokumen-dokumen tersebut tidak relevan kepada pertuduhan dan memprejudiskan Perayu, Pihak Perayu ingin menarik perhatian Mahkamah yang Mulia ini kepada satu kes yang diputuskan oleh VT Singham J di dalam kes Ah Poon & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2006] 5 CLJ 521 (di mukasurat 10-11 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana VT Sigham J menyatakan seperti berikut:

 

“Irrelevant and Prejudicial Facts Or Evidence

 

[17] As for the police report which contains serious allegation that the accuseds are suspected to be involved in the activity of prostitution, it cannot be denied that this is highly prejudical, inadmissible or is otherwise objectionable and the accuseds have every right to know and understand the contents and they should be given the opportunity of raising any objection to the contents of the police report which is against them. In the instant case, there is nothing in the record to show whether the contents of the police report which has been marked as exh. P 3 was read and explained to the accuseds and what was their response.

 

[18] It is paramount importance that all documentary evidence which are tendered as evidence by the prosecution and marked as exhibits in proceedings where the accused has pleaded guilty to a charge if possible should be shown, read and explained to the accuseds and understood by him or her so that in the event the contents of the documents which contains some incriminating facts which implicates the accuseds are disputed or not admitted, the document will have to be rejected without having it marked as an exhibit…..Be that as it may, a document or an exhibit is not to be admitted unless it is relevant to the charge.”

89.       Pihak Perayu ingin berhujah bahawa pengemukaan dokumen cetakan komputer berupa gambar-gambar tersebut yang telah ditanda sebagai ekshibit “P20” hingga “P33” amat jelas telah mencabul hak (dengan izin) ‘privacy’ dan (dengan izin) ‘privillege’ Perayu dan keluarga sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan di bawah Artikel 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Pengemukaan dokumen cetakan komputer berupa gambar-gambar tersebut yang telah ditanda sebagai ekshibit “P20” hingga “P33” adalah tanpa sebarang kebenaran daripada pembuat dokumen-dokumen tersebut dan tidak relevan kepada pertuduhan terhadap Perayu.

90.       Pihak Pendakwaan turut memanggil SP6 untuk memberi keterangan mengenai ekshibit “P20 hingga “P33” yang kononnya mengikut pihak Pendakwaan diekstrak dari cakera keras tersebut. Walaubagaimanapun SP6 menggunapakai peruntukkan undang-undang Seksyen 122 Akta Keterangan 1950 kerana beliau mempunyai ‘privilege’ ke atas gambar-gambar berbentuk perlakuan tersebut yang merupakan satu bentuk komunikasi di antara Perayu dan SP6. Mahkamah sendiri telah turut memutuskan bahawa ekshibit “P-20” hingga “P-33” adalah dokumen-dokumen yang dilindungi di bawah privilege di bawah Seksyen 122 Akta Keterangan 1950 dan oleh yang demikian tidak boleh diterima sebagai bukti di Mahkamah (rakaman video perbicaraan pada 19.10.2010). Seksyen 122 Akta Keterangan 1950 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

 

S122. No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication unless the person who made it or his representative in interest consents, except in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.”

91.       Mahkamah sendiri telah turut memutuskan bahawa ekshibit “P-20” hingga “P-33” adalah dokumen-dokumen yang dilindungi di bawah privilege di bawah Seksyen 122 Akta Keterangan 1950 dan juga telah membuat keputusan bahawa SP6 adalah (dengan izin) ‘hostile witness’.

 

92.       Pihak Perayu bersandarkan satu kes yang diputuskan oleh Mustapha Hussain J di dalam Palldas a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor [1988] 1 CLJ 661, 665 (di mukasurat 5 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) menyatakan bahawa perlakuan juga satu bentuk komunikasi di antara isteri dan Tertuduh.

 

“From the record of appeal, the appellant’s wife Gudi Kaur (PW3) had, in examination-in-chief, given quite a lengthy evidence of all communications between herself and her husband. Though some of the evidence relates between purely to acts, as distinct from words spoken, ie, what she saw appellant was doing, it is so inextricably interwoven with what appellant had said to her, that to separate each act from words spoken by the appellant to her would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Even if extricable and rejecting the words spoken, one would have their prejudicial effect still lingering.

 

Even though objection was not taken by the defence, this silence cannot convert what the law says is inadmissible evidence to be admissible. One would expect the wife’s evidence to be led in such a way as to confine such evidence to what she saw the appellant doing. The wife should have been stopped the moment she started uttering what her husband said to her. From the record it would seem that nobody ever bothered about this section 122. 

 

93.       Di dalam kes Public Prosecutor lawan Abdul Majid [1994] 3 MLJ 457 (di mukasurat 6 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) James Foong J telah memutuskan bahawa isteri tertuduh boleh dipaksa memberi keterangan kecuali komunikasi yang dibuat oleh tertuduh kepada beliau melainkan jika keizinan tertuduh diperolehi seperti yang diperlukan di bawah S122 Akta Keterangan 1950.

94.       Pihak Perayu juga ingin menyatakan bahawa pengemukaan dokumen cetakan komputer berupa gambar-gambar tersebut yang telah ditanda sebagai ekshibit “P20” hingga “P33” adalah tanpa sebarang kebenaran daripada pembuat dokumen-dokumen tersebut, memprejudiskan Perayu, tidak relevan kepada pertuduhan terhadap Perayu dan tidak termasuk di dalam lingkungan definisi “filem” sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Seksyen 3 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002.

Definisi “filem’ di bawah Seksyen 3 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 adalah seperti berikut:

“filem” termasuklah keseluruhan atau apa-apa bahagian-

 

            (a) sesuatu filem sinematografi: dan

 

(b) Sesuatu pita video, disket, cakera laser, cakera padat, cakera keras dan rekod lain,

 

yang asal atau pendua bagi suatu urutan imej gambar tampak, yang merupakan suatu rekod yang dapat digunakan sebagai suatu cara untuk menunjukkan urutan itu sebagai suatu gambar bergerak, sama ada atau tidak diiringi oleh bunyi;”

 

95.       Adalah dihujahkan bahawa Ekshibit “P-20” hingga “P-33” adalah dokumen cetakan komputer berupa gambar-gambar yang yang TIDAK berurutan dan TIDAK bergerak.

96.       Perayu berhujah bahawa milikan tidak boleh dibuktikan melalui keterangan persekitaran (‘circumstantial evidence’) iaitu dengan mengemukakan kepada Mahkamah Ekshibit-ekshibit “P-11”, “P-12”, “P-13”, “P-14, “P-15”, “P-16”, “P-17”, “P-18”, “P-19”, “P-20” hingga “P33” yang merupakan salinan dokumen-dokumen yang tidak berkaitan dengan pertuduhan hanya kerana dokumen-dokumen tersebut didakwa terdapat di dalam cakera keras (‘hard disc’) tersebut (dinafikan oleh Perayu).

97.       Kesimpulannya pihak Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan elemen ‘milikan’ cakera keras tersebut terhadap Perayu.

98.       Keputusan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan isu milikan ekshibit “P-2” dan bilangan klip video lucah yang dikatakan terkandung di dalam ekshibit “P-2” (dipertikaikan oleh Perayu/Tertuduh) berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan SP1, SP2, SP3, SP5, SP6 dan SP7 adalah longgar dan tidak berasaskan prinsip-prinsip undang-undang yang mantap.

Isu Kaedah Analisis Forensik Komputer (SP1) yang berkaitan dengan elemen ‘milikan’

 

99.       Saksi pakar SP1 dipertikaikan oleh pihak Perayu berdasarkan sebab-sebab berikut:

a.               Pertuduhan terhadap Perayu/Tertuduh telah dibuat berdasarkan laporan polis SP1 Dang Wangi Report No. 029694/09 (Ekshibit “P-34mukasurat 18 Nota Keterangan) apabila SP1 membuat pemeriksaan analisa pada 23.7.2009. Walaubagaimanapun di dalam salinan laporan polis tersebut ada jelas tercatit bahawa laporan polis tersebut tidak boleh digunakan untuk tuntutan atau perbicaraan di Mahkamah dan hanya untuk kegunaan dalaman PDRM sahaja.  Oleh yang demikian pertuduhan di hadapan Mahkamah ini adalah cacat, defektif dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang kerana berasaskan laporan polis yang tidak boleh digunakan untuk pendakwaan dan perbicaraan di Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. Walaubagaimanapun di akhir kes pendakwaan pada 19.10.2010, Mahkamah ada menyatakan bahawa laporan polis SP1 sekarang adalah ‘First Information Report’ (rakaman video perbicaraan pada 19.10.2010).

b.         Di dalam kes ini terdapat konflik kepentingan (‘conflict of interest’) dan melanggar etika seorang pakar (‘Breach of Expert Duties’) di pihak SP1 yang bertindak sebagai pakar dan pengadu pada masa yang sama dan telah memprejudiskan secara material pertuduhan terhadap Tertuduh dan ini sangat bertentangan dengan kod etika dan amalan saksi pakar yang diterimapakai oleh mahkamah-mahkamah di seluruh dunia. Setelah meneliti Nota Keterangan bagi perbicaraan-perbicaraan yang dijalankan dari 7.6.2010 hingga 29.7.2010, memang ketara bahawa terdapat konflik kepentingan (‘conflict of interest’) dan ‘Breach of Expert Duties’ di mana saksi pendakwaan pertama (SP1) bukan hanya bertindak sebagai pengadu dan pakar tetapi juga sebagai pegawai penyiasat pada masa yang sama kerana semua barang kes diterima melalui beliau dan catatan di atas Ekshibit “P-20” hingga Eksihbit “P-33” ditanda oleh beliau mengikut keterangan SP7(rakaman video perbicaraan pada 19.10.2010). Keterangan SP1 bersifat keterangan dengar cakap (‘hearsay’).

Mengikut kaedah yang diterimapakai oleh mahkamah-mahkamah ‘commonwealth’ dan antarabangsa, saksi yang lain perlu dipanggil bagi menyokong keterangan saksi pakar apabila berlaku konflik kepentingan (‘conflict of interest’) dan melanggar etika seorang pakar (‘Breach of Expert Duties’), prinsip yang dikenali sebagai “Moorov Doctrine” berdasarkan Buku ‘Electronic Evidence’ Chapter 13 Scotland, Scots Law of Evidence, Corroboration mukasurat 388, pada para 13.15:

“13.15 At common law, the facts which, in a criminal case, establish the guilt of the accused or, in a civil case, establish the defender liability, are required to be proved by corroborated evidence, which is to say either

            (a)       the direct evidence of two witnesses; or

            (b)       two or more evidential facts spoken to separate witnesses; or

(c)        a combination of direct evidence of one witness and one or             more evidential facts spoken to by other witnesses[i].

 

A specialty of the law relating to corroboration is so-called Moorov Doctrine[ii], which was developed to combat one of the intrinsic problems raised by the requirement for corroboration in the case of crimes commited in private. The doctrine allows similar alleged offences to corroborate each other if one witness speaks to each.”

Di dalam kes Alcontara A/L Ambross v Public Prosecutor [1996] 1 MLJ 209 (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) (di mukasurat 211 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seperti berikut:

 

“(5)   Although no objection had been raised to the admission of one of the statement made by ASP Abdul Wahab which was clearly based on hearsay and therefore inadmissible, the judge was nevertheless under an automatic duty to stop it from being adduced, for inadmissible evidence does not become admissible by reason of failure to object.”.

c.         Adalah menjadi hujah Pihak Perayu bahawa saksi pendakwaan SP1 hanya merupakan saksi pakar dan adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang jelas bahawa keterangan seorang saksi pakar hanya bersifat sokongan (‘corroborative’), boleh diambilkira tetapi tidak semestinya perlu diterima dan Mahkamah sendiri yang perlu menentukan isu kebolehterimaan sesuatu bukti.

Pihak Perayu ingin menarik perhatian Mahkamah kepada kes Public Prosecutor v. Lin Lian Chen [1992] 2 MLJ 561 (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) (di mukasurat 317 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Mahkamah Agung telah mengesahkan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa bila memanggil keterangan pakar, pihak pendakwaan mesti mendirikan kepakaran saksi tersebut.

d.         Selain daripada itu, Pihak Perayu turut berhujah bahawa kaedah yang betul perlu digunapakai apabila melibatkan saksi pakar sebagaimana yang diputuskan oleh Hashim J di dalam kes Wong Chop Saow v. Public Prosecutor [1965] 1 MLJ 247 (di mukasurat 2 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) seperti berikut:

 

“To avoid confusion the expert witness should give his evidence as follows: He should first state his qualifications as an expert. He should then state that he has given evidence as an expert in such cases and that his evidence has been accepted by the courts.”

e.         Daripada Nota Keterangan tersebut, tiada keterangan daripada SP1 yang menunjukkan kelayakan beliau dan samada beliau pernah memberi keterangan di mahkamah dan mahkamah menerima keterangan beliau.

f.          Setelah meneliti Nota Keterangan tersebut, banyak tokok tambah, percanggahan keterangan yang direkodkan dan juga fakta-fakta penting tidak direkodkan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur. Di antara percanggahan keterangan tersebut SP1 telah menyatakan bahawa beliau tiada sijil ENCase tetapi mengikut Nota Keterangan tersebut SP1 menyatakan bahawa beliau ada sijil dari satu syarikat dan identiti syarikat tersebut tidak dinyatakan (mukasurat 22 Nota Keterangan tersebut). Seperti yang dijelaskan di dalam buku “Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations3rd Edition muka surat 81, Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillps, Frank Enfiger, and Christopher Steuart:

EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE) Certification

Guidance Software, the creator of EnCase, sponsors the EnCE certification program. EnCE certification is open to the public and private sectors and is specific to the use and mastery of EnCase computer forensics analysis. Requirements for taking the EnCE certification exam don’t depend on taking the Guidance Software EnCase training courses. Candidates for this certificate are required to have a licensed copy of EnCase.”

Perayu ingin menarik perhatian Mahkamah yang Mulia ini kepada kes Foo Fio Na v. Hospital Assunta & Anor [1999] 6 MLJ 738 (di mukasurat 758 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) yang merujuk kepada kes Whitehouse v Jordan & Anor [1981] 1 All ER pada mukasurat 276:

“While some degree of consultation between experts and legal advisers is entirely proper, it is necessary that expert evidence presented to the court should be, and should be seen to be the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation. To the extent that it is not, the evidence is likely to be not only incorrect but self defeating.”  

Perayu ingin juga merujuk kepada kes R v Harris [2006] 1 Cr App Rep 55 (di mukasurat 65 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) seperti berikut:

“[271] It may be helpful for judges, practitioners and experts to be reminded of the obligations of an expert witness summarised by Cresswell J in National Justice Cia Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd, The Ikarian Reefer [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68 at 81. Cresswell J pointed out amongst other factors the following,which we summarise as follows:

(1) Expert evidence presented to the court should be and seen to be the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.

(2) An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of advocate.

(3) An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions on which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which detract from his concluded opinions.

(4) An expert should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.

(5) If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is available then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one.

(6) If after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his view on material matters, such change of view should be communicated to the other side without delay and when appropriate to the court.”

Perayu ingin juga merujuk kepada Australian Medical Association di dalam buku “Expert Evidence” muka surat 326 seperti berikut:

Expert Medical Witness – Policy Statement (March 1998)

            2. Conflict of Interest

 

That the AMA believes that, when requested to provide an expert opinion and faced with conflict of interest, a practitioner should declare this or decline to offer an opinion.

  1. SP1 tidak memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini kelulusan akademik berkaitan dengan kepakaran di dalam bidang komputer dan tidak pernah menduduki peperiksaan (EnCE) yang diiktiraf oleh syarikat EnCase Software bagi melayakkan beliau mengendalikan perisian Encase dengan betul dan tepat berdasarkan piawaian persijilan ISO kawalan mutu forensik komputer antarabangsa. Ini amat memudaratkan kes Pendakwaan kerana kelayakan dan kepakaran SP1 tidak dibuktikan.

SP1 semasa pemeriksaan balas memberi keterangan seperti berikut:

C         :           “Qualified untuk handle Encase?

:           Saya berkursus untuk belajar Encase dan jalankan analisa, tak ingat nama company tapi ada sijil”

(mukasurat 22 Nota Keterangan)

Ini disokong dengan satu kes Pendakwaraya lawan Kit Chee Wan [1999] 1 MLJ 16 (di mukasurat 6 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa saksi pakar mesti membuktikan latarbelakang kelayakan akademik dan keupayaan kepakaran beliau.

h.         Analisis terhadap barang rampasan yang dijalankan oleh SP1 tidak mengikut piawaian forensik komputer antarabangsa. SP1 di dalam keterangannya semasa pemeriksaan balas mengaku bahawa beliau tidak melakukan analisa forensik yang ditetapkan oleh piawaian forensik komputer antarabangsa malah SP1 juga mengaku tidak melakukan proses ‘acquisition’, ‘forensic imaging’, dan pengesahan kesahihan kandungan hard disk tersebut (mukasurat 2, 3, 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 dan 27 Nota Keterangan).

Bagi isu ini pihak Perayu memohon agar Mahkamah yang Mulia ini menggunapakai peruntukkan Seksyen 5 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan dibaca bersama Seksyen 56 dan Seksyen 57 Akta Keterangan 1950 untuk mengambilkira kes-kes yang telah diputuskan mengikut Common Law  atau undang-undang yang berkuatkuasa di England mengenai kaedah pembuktian forensik komputer memandangkan tiada kes berkaitan pembuktian cakera keras (‘hard disc’) yang diputuskan dengan piawaian forensik antarabangsa di Malaysia pada masa ini.

Piawaian forensik komputer antarabangsa untuk penggunaan perisian Encase, peralatan pengimejan forensik ImagerSolo III, dan beberapa perisian yang lain yang diiktiraf oleh piawaian forensik antarabangsa dan persijilan ISO kawalan mutu forensik komputer antarabangsa, kaedah ‘acquisition’ yang betul dan tepat di samping kaedah pengimejan menggunakan format pengimejan forensik komputer yang diterima oleh piawaian forensik antarabangsa tetapi tidak ditunjukkan dan dilakukan oleh SP1. Kaedah pengiraan ‘hash value’ bagi setiap klip video dengan menggunakan proses ‘one-way hash functions’ yang akan menghasilkan ‘digital fingerprint’ (‘hash value’) yang unik bagi setiap maklumat yang diproses dengan algorithma ‘digital signature’ atau ‘DNA signature’ tertentu yang peka terhadap Kesan Avalanche (Avalanche Effect) (di mukasurat 1-2 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu). Kaedah ‘forensic imaging’ yang betul dan tepat juga memainkan peranan yang sangat penting untuk mengawal rapi ketepatan dan bahan bukti di dalam bentuk yang asal dan tidak tercemar atau ‘tampered’. Penggunaan dan pemilihan algorithma-algorithma yang betul dan tepat amat bersesuaian untuk tujuan pengesahan, kesahihan, integriti dan kebolehterimaan kandungan cakera keras (‘harddisk’) untuk perbicaraan di mahkamah di mana kaedah pengekstrakan bahan bukti secara imej-imej forensik yang disalin dari cakera keras satu persatu bit (bit per bit) dan kesemua proses tersebut tidak dilakukan oleh SP1 (mukasurat 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 dan 27 Nota Keterangan).

i.          SP1 juga tidak tahu apa itu yang dimaksudkan sebagai ‘hash value‘, ‘hash functions’ dan ‘algorithms‘ yang digunakan untuk tujuan pengesahan, integriti, kebolehterimaan dan kebolehpercayaan data di dalam harddisk tersebut. Malah SP1 juga telah memberi keterangan bahawa dia tidak tahu kegunaan ‘hash functions’, ‘hash value’, ‘hash algorithm’ dan ‘forensic tools’ yang sepatutnya digunakan semasa melakukan analisa forensik terhadap ‘harddisk’ seperti yang telah dibangkitkan oleh Perayu semasa pemeriksaan balas (mukasurat 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 dan 27 Nota Keterangan).

Bagi rujukan Mahkamah yang Mulia ini, ‘Hash functions’ mengikut buku manual PGP, Version 7.0 yang dikeluarkan oleh Network Associates, Inc., di mukasurat 20-21, dimaksudkan seperti berikut:

“PGP uses a cryptographically strong hash function on the plaintiext the user is signing. This generates a fixed-length data item known as a message digest. (Again, any change to the information results in a totally different digest).

 

Then PGP uses the digest and the private key to create the “signature”. PGP transmits the signature and the plaintext together. Upon receipt of the message, the recipient uses PGP to recompute the digest, thus verifying the signature. PGP can ecrypt the plaintext or not; signing plaintext is useful if some of the recipients are not interested in or capable of verifying the signature.

 

As long as a secure hash function is used, there is no way to take someone’s signature from one document and attach it to another, or to alter a signed message in any way. The slightest change to a signed document will cause the digital signature verification process to fail.”

 

Selain daripada itu, mengikut buku Applied Cryptography, oleh Bruce Schneier, 1996, 2nd Edition,1996, di mukasurat 429 :

 

A one-way hash function, H(M), operates on an arbitrary-length pre-image message, M. It returns a fixed-length hash value, h.

 

Many functions can take an arbitrary-length input and return an output of fixed length, but one-way hash functions have additional characteristics that make them one-way [1065]:

 

Given M, it is easy to compute h.

Given h, it is hard to compute M such that H(m)= h.

Given M, it is hard to find another message, M’, sich that H(M) =H(M’).

 

If Mallory could do the hard things, he would undermine the security of every protocol that uses one-way hash function. The whole point of the one-way hash function is to provide a “fingerprint” of M that is unique. If Alice sgned M by using a digital signature algorithm on H(M), and Bob could produce M’, another message different from M where H(M)=H(M’), then Bob could claim that Alice signed M’.

 

Mengikut buku Cryptography Decrypted oleh H.X Mel dan Doris Baker, 2001, di mukasurat 142, ‘hash function berkaitan dengan ‘non-keyed message’:

“Non-keyed message digests are made without a secret key and are called message integrity codes (MICs) or modification detections (MDCs). MIC is more commonly used, but MDC seems to be a more straightforward description of how a non-keyed message digest works. Most public key digital signatures use non-keyed message digests.

 

Keyed message digests, known as message authentication codes (MACs), combine a message and a secret key. This chapter reviews and extends the discussion of MACs presented in Chapter 7, where you saw the shared secret key used in conjunction with a secret key encryption method, such as DES or Rijndael (the new AES standard).

 

Note that although the term hash function is usually reserved for non-keyed message digests, it is sometimes used to refer to both keyed and non-keyed digest functions.”

 

Di dalam buku Cyber Forensics : A Field Manual for Collecting, examining, and Preserving Evidence of Computer Crimes oleh Albert J. Marcella, Jr dan Doug Menendez, 2nd Edition, 2008, di mukasurat 56, ‘hash functions’ didefinisikan seperti berikut :

Hash Functions

 

Hash functions, also called message digests and one-way encryption, are algorithms that, in some sense, use no key. Instead, a fixed-length hash value is computed based upon the plaintext that makes it impossible for either the contents or length of the plaintext to be recovered. Hash algorithms are typically used to provide a digital fingerprint of a file’s contents, often used to ensure that the file has not been altered by an intruder or virus. Hash functions are also commonly employed by many operating systems to encrypt passwords. Hash functions, then, provide a measure of the integrity of a file.”

 

Tujuan untuk mengumpul ‘hash value’ dinyatakan di dalam buku Guide to Computer Forensics and investigations”, 3rd Edition,  2008, oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinger dan Christopher Steuart di mukasurat 289:

“NIST also created the National Software Reference Library (NSRL) project (www.nsrl.nist.gov) with the goal of collecting all known hash values for commercial software and OS files. The primary hash NSRL uses is SHA-1, which generates a known set of digital signatures called the Reference Data Set (RDS). SHA-1 provides better accuracy than other hashing methods, such as MD5 or CRC-32.

 

The purpose of collecting known hash values is to reduce the number of known files included in a forensics examination of a drive, leaving only the unknown files. Identifying known good files, such as Os files or programs, means you can reduce the number of files you need to inspect as possible evidence. You can also use the RDS to locate and identify known bad files, such as illegal images and computer viruses, on a suspect drive.” 

 

Di dalam buku Electronic Evidence Disclosure, Discovery & Admisssibility oleh Stephen Mason, 2007 di mukasurat 50-51 telah dinyatakan kepentingan memelihara bukti berbentuk digital:

Preserving digital evidence

 

Validating digital evidence

 

3.16    Digital evidence in particular needs to be validated if it is to have any probative value. A digital evidence specialist will invariably copy the contents of a number of disks or storage devices, in both criminal and civil matters. To prove the digital evidence has not been altered, it is necessary to put in place checks and balances to prove the duplicate evidence in digital format has not been altered since it was copied. An electronic fingerprint is used to prove the integrity of data at the time the evidence was collected. The electronic fingerprint uses a cryptograpih technique that is capable of being associated with a single file, a floppy disk or the entire contents of a hard drive. As digital evidence is copied, a digital evidence specialist will use software tools that are relevant to the task. The software tool used will invariably incorporate a program that causes a checksum operation, called a ‘hash function’ to be applied to the file or disk that is being copied. The result of applying a hash function to digital data is called a ‘hash value’. The hash value has been calculated against the content of the data. This is a one-way function, containing the mathematical equivalent of a secret trapdoor. For the purposes of understanding the concept, this algorithm is easy to compute in one direction and difficult to compute in the opposite direction, unless you known the secret. 1 The has function is sued to verify that a file, or the copy of a file, has not changed. If the file has been altered in any way, the hash value will not be the same and the investigator will be alerted to the discrepancy. A digital signature can also be used in this way, by combining the hash value against some additional information, such as the time.

 

1It has yet to be proven that a mathematical function can have aone-way fundtion, see Fred Piper, Sion Balke-Wilson and John Mitchell Digital Signatures Secuirty & Controls (1999) p. 16.”    

 

Buku Cryptography and Secure Communications oleh Man Young Rhee, 1994, di mukasurat 364 ada dihuraikan berkenaan hash value seperti berikut:

 

“Thus, a systolic array circuit for computing the transform error can be shown as in Fig. 8.22.

 

Referring to Eq. 8.87, the inverse transform of the error pattern E, is

 

(8.111)

 

In order to develop a systolic array for computing e Eq. 8.111 can also be rewritten in recursive form as

(8.112)

 

A systolic cell structure for computing Eq. 8.112 is shown in Fig. 8.23. Using this figure, we obtain so that the error pattern becomes as expected. The number of basic cells needed to compute Eq. 8.112. Finally the decoding process is accomplished by c”

 

Di dalam buku Godel’s Theorem : An incomplete Guide To Its Use and Abuse oleh Torkel Franzen di mukasurat 63 dan 64 menunjukkan bahawa computer adalah satu alatan yang ada batasan :

 

“It was Alan Turing who, in 1936, introduced a thereotical model of a general–purpose digital computer with unlimited working memory (the universal Turing machine) and made it plausible that everything that can be mechanically computed can be computed by such a machine. Today,Turing computability is one of the several equivalent definitions of computability used in logic and mathematics, and we are used to thinking of ordinary computers as physical realizations of the universal Turing machine, except that actual computers have limited memory. In a mathematical treatment of the theory of computability, the Truing machine or some other model of computation is used to give formal definitions of the basic concepts of the theory. In this book we will make do with informal definitions of these basic concepts, which still allow us to understand and appreciate several important results of the theory. All we need to know about the workings of a computer is that executing a program can be described as consisting in a series of steps, so that it is possible to carry out a certain number of steps in a computation, do something else for a while, and then return to carry out the next step in the computation.”      

 

Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kes R v. Trapp [2009] S.J. No. 64; 2009 SKPC 109; 2009 S.K.C. LEXIS 686 (di mukasurat 2-10 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana pakar telah menunjukkan kepada mahkamah penggunaan ‘hash function’ atau ‘hash algorithm’ dan ‘hash value’ merupakan proses yang sangat kritikal dan penting di samping pengimejan forensik dilakukan sebelumnya. Di dalam kes tersebut, pakar telah menggunakan SHA-1 sebagai ‘hash function’, ‘hash value’ penggiraan ‘hash value’ ditunjukkan dan dibandingkan dengan salinan imej forensik semasa perbicaraan. Berdasarkan keterangan saksi SP1, amat jelas bahawa saksi SP1 tidak melakukan analisa yang betul dan tepat untuk memenuhi piawaian forensik antarabangsa yang ditetapkan berdasarkan Piawaian Daubert, di dalam kes Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (mukasurat 13 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu), Cyber Forensics – A Field Manual for Collecting, Examining, and Preserving Evidence of Computer Crimes’, 2nd Edition oleh Albert J. Marcella, Jr. dan Doug Menendez di mukasurat 276, yang merupakan satu piawaian yang diterimapakai oleh semua badan forensik di seluruh dunia,seperti di bawah:

 

Daubert Test for Reliability

 

Witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:

 

-The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data

-The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods

-The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case

 

The key for the Court in determining whether an expert may testify before a jury is therefore primarily one of “reliability of method”. The court will not look at the actual opinion held by an expert, but merely examines his or her methodology to determine whether the procedures used or his methodology is not reliable, then his entire opinion is likewise unreliable and should be excluded from the jury.

 

Daubert Factors

 

The U.S Supreme Court set out several specific factors that should be used by the courts in evaluating any proposed expert testimony. These factors are not exclusive and some or all may not apply in any given case, but they are always the place to start the reliability analysis. The factors are as follows:

 

1. Whether the theory or technique has been scientifically tested.

2. Whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review or publication.

3. The (expected) error rate of the technique used.

4. Acceptance of the theory or technique in the relevant scientific community.

 

            (muka surat 277)

  • Are the underlying premises upon which a technique or method empirically validated?
  • Is there a professional literature that describes the purposes to be achieved and the methods whereby the aims of the field can be reliably realized?
  • Are there professional associations or societies offering contuining education to which members with established credentials are eligible to belong?
  • Does there exist a rigorous training program whereby one can achieve basic proficiency in the discipline under the supervision of persons with established credential who can impart knowledge and experience to trainees seeking to qualify as examiners?
  • Is there a meaningful certification program that attests to the competence and proficiency of workers in the discipline?
  • Has an examination protocol been developed whereby investigations can be reliably carried out and which will yield reasonably consistent results when followed by properly credentialed examiners [18]?”

   

SP1 semasa pemeriksaan balas menyatakan bahawa beliau tidak membuat pengimejan bahan bukti di dalam bentuk salinan imej-imej forensik bagi keseluruhan kandungan cakera keras (‘harddisk’) (mukasurat 26 Nota Keterangan) seperti yang ditetapkan oleh piawaian forensik komputer antarabangsa (Piawaian Daubert). Oleh yang demikian SP1 tidak mengikut kaedah yang diiktiraf oleh piawaian komputer forensik antarabangsa dan bahan bukti tidak disahkan kesahihan dan integritinya. Perayu juga telah menerima 13 keping DVD salinan klip video yang disalin dengan menggunakan format DVD yang bukan mengikuti piawaian format pengimejan forensik antarabangsa yang ditetapkan di mana apabila diperiksa oleh Perayu telah mendapati metadata setiap fail klip video tidak sama dengan metadata yang diterangkan oleh SP1 dan bilangan klip video juga berbeza bilangan yang diberi dengan keterangan SP1 semasa perbicaraan. Terdapat juga kandungan yang sama dikira berulang-ulang semasa perbicaraan.

 

Fakta ini dinyatakan semasa pemeriksaan utama SP1:

Selepas analisa/kenalpasti video2 lucah yang terkandung tindakan seterusnya adalah masukan video2 ini ke dalam DVD. Tidak ingat berapa keping. Saya masih boleh cam.

(Pohon Mahkamah yang Mulia ini merujuk DVD dalam sampul putih-di dalam ada 13 keping tanda X1-X13. Dicamkan SP1. Ditanda sebagai “P3a-m”) (mukasurat 13 Nota Keterangan).

Mengikut The Oxford Companion To Philosophy, disunting oleh Ted Honderich, 2005, pada mukasurat 145 dan mukasurat 857 :

Cognition. Traditionally this has been regarded as the domain of thought and inference, marking the contrast with perpetual experiences and other metal phenomena such as pains and itches. Sensations, perceptions, and feelings are all distinguished from episodes of cognition since they provide input to the domain of thinking and reasoning but are not thoughts themselves.

 

More recently, cognition has been conceived as the domain of representational states and processes studied in cognitive psychology and * cognitive science. These are phemomena involved in thinking about the world, using a language, guiding and controlling behavior. The new definition embraces some aspects of sensory perception where this involves representations of a spatial world and the intelligent processing of sensory input..”  

scientific method. Although the question of scientific method is generally thought to resolve itself into two parts-the problem of discovery and the problem of justification-it seems fair to say that philosophers have let significantly more comfortable with the latter than the former. Indeed there are those (like Karl Popper) who have argued that philosophy can say nothing of value about discovery and that the whole topic is best left to the historian or psychologist…”

 

Mengikut The Oxford Companion To Philosophy, disunting oleh Ted Honderich, 2005, pada mukasurat 45:

a priori and a posteriori. These are terms primarily used to describe two species of propositional knowledge but also, derivatively, two classes of *propositions or *truths, namely, those that are knowable a priori and a posteriori respectively. Knowledge is said to be priori when it does not depend for its authority upon the evidence of experience, ad a posteriori when it does so depend.

 

Whether knowledge is a priori is quite a different question from whether it is * innate. Mathematics provides the most often cited examples of a priori knowledge, but most of our mathematical knowledge is no doubt acquired through experience even though it is justifiable independently of experience. Kant and others have held that a priori knowledge concerns only necessary truths while a posteriori knowledge concerns only contigent truths, but Kripke has challenged this assumption.”

 

Di dalam buku The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy disunting oleh Thomas Mautner di mukasurat 33:

“a priori ; a posteriori 1. The pair of terms marks a dinstiction between reasoning from ground to consequence and reasoning from consequence to ground which goes back to Aristotle, and was adopted by medieval Arabic and Christian philosophers, including Thomas Aquinas. Albert of Saxony is often mentioned as the originator of this pair of terms. This usage can also be found in Samuel Clarke (1675-1729): the ontological argument for God’s existence is a priori, whilst the argument (in Descartes’s Third Meditation) from my idea of God to his existence is a posteriori.

 

2. The pair of terms was later applied not to two kinds of reasoning, but two kinds of knowledge, of propositions and of concepts. Knowledge a posteriori is based on experience, knowledge a priori is independent of experience. The two kinds of knowledge were assigned to different faculties of the mind (sensibility v. intellect). “

 

    

Di dalam buku 101 Key Ideas Philosophy di mukasurat 1:

 

“Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of knowledge as a subject in its own right. In particular, epistemology involves examining the grounds on which we claim to know that something is true or false. In this sense a priori knowledge is described as knowledge which is not based on observations of the world around us. The latter kind of knowledge is often termed empirical knowledge, or perhaps less commonly, a posteriori knowledge.

 

Common sense suggests that most of our knowledge comes from either observations of the world, or perhaps from our senses of touch and hearing. If we observe a chair which has been painted blue, we know it is a blue chair because of our interpretation of a particular wavelength of light received by our eyes. In addition, we understand the concept ‘blue’ beucase as we grew up we learned that objects with this clolour were described as blue. If on the other hand someone says to us that there is a chair in the next room, we have no way of knowing in advance what colour the chair might be. There is nothing in the concept ‘chair’ which helps us to predict its colour.

 

Now some philosophers argue that all knowledge must of necessity be based upon empirical observation. Such philosophers can generally be described as empiricists. Others suggest, however, that a priori knowledge, i.e. derived prior to experience, is perfectly possible. Philosophers who hold this position can be broadly described as rationalists. As an example of knowledge which some might argue is a priori, we could take the idea that every event in the universe must have a cause. An advocate of the existence of a priori knowledge would say that if we were told a ball had been rolling down the road, we would know that something had caused the ball to start rolling. It might have been a gust of wind, or someone kicking it, or that the road was sloping. A rationalist would argue that there would be no need to investigate the ball-rolling incident any further in order to determine that something had caused the event.”

Buku The Oxford Companion To Philosophy, disunting oleh Ted Honderich, 2005, pada mukasurat 199:

 

Deontic Logic. The study of principles of reasoning pertaining to obligation, permission, prohibition, moral commitment, and other normative matters. Although often described as a branch of logic, deontic logic lacks the ‘topic- neutrality’ characteristics of logic proper.”

Buku The Oxford Companion To Philosophy, disunting oleh Ted Honderich, 2005, pada mukasurat 529:

Logic, history of. Aristotle was the first thinker to devise a logical system. He drew upon the emphasis on universal deifintion found in Socrates, the use of *reduction add absurdum in Zeno of Elea, claims about propositional structure and *negation in Parmenides and Plato, and the body of argumentative techniques found in legal reasoning and geometrical proof…”

Buku The Oxford Companion To Philosophy, disunting oleh Ted Honderich, 2005, pada mukasurat 590:

 

Metaphysics, history of. Metaphysics is the most abstract and in some views ‘high-falutin’ part of philosophy, having to do with the features of ultimate reality, what really exists and what it is that distinguishes that and makes it possible. Nevertheless, the exact nature of the subject has been constantly disputed, as indeed has its validity and usefulness.

 

Philosophy at its very beginnings with the Pre-Socratics was metaphysical in character, although it was initially presented in a dress which made it sound more like physics, as witness Thales’ claim that everything is made of water. Subsequent Pre-Socratics were concerned with other attempts to understand nature and the possibility of change within it, although Parmenides argued (for the first time by means of a formal argument, even if that was given a poetical dress) that coming to be, ceasing to be, and change in general were impossible, so that his successors had to counter his claim, even if they did not fully understand his arguments. By the time of Plato, with his theory that the true realities were Forms (or Ideas), abstract exemplars or paradigms, of which sensible things were only imperfect copies, the distinction of metaphysics from physics became clear, since these realities were quite distinct from the world with which physics has its concern. Since the Forms were also universal in character his theory also initiated metaphysical arguments concerning the status of * universals, something that has gone on ever since…”

 

Pihak Perayu berhujah secara lanjut bahawa setiap bukti saintifik memerlukan suatu persembahan ilmu yang lengkap dan bersifat ‘empirical’ bukan semata-mata ‘intuition’ yang hanya dilakukan secara rambang dan melulu. Malah pihak pendakwaan juga cuba mengalihkan fakta berkenaan kaedah analisis dan kandungan sebenar cakera keras (“hard disk”) semasa perbicaraan.

Buku The Oxford Companion To Philosophy, disunting oleh Ted Honderich, 2005, pada mukasurat 242:

Empirical. Based on experience..”

 

Empiricism. Any view which bases our knowledge, or the materials from which it is construed, on experience through the traditional five senses. ..”

Immanuel Kant di dalam bukunya yang bertajuk, “Critique of Pure Reason” – The Cambridge Edition of The Work of Immanuel Kant, Doctrine of Elements, Pt II. Div. I Bk. I. Ch. II. (B128) muka surat 226:

The empirical derivation, however, to which both of them resorted, cannot be reconciled with reality of the scientific cognition a priori that we posses, that namely of pure mathematics and general natural science, and is therefore refutted by the facta.”

a das Factum

SP1 seharusnya membuat analisis forensik mengikut kaedah saintifik yang betul dan tepat serta perlu melibatkan penghujahan dan penelitian berdasarkan teori yang telah diterima oleh komuniti antarabangsa dan telah diterbitkan dan ini melibatkan pemerhatian yang berbentuk dan bercirikan “empiricism” semasa ujian forensik ke atas barang bukti berbentuk elektronik di mana “empiricism” merupakan keperluan saintifik yang membawa kebenaran yang boleh diulang ujikajinya pada bila-bila masa malah menghasilkan suatu keputusan analisa berangka yang memberi sokongan (‘corroboration’) terhadap keterangan saksi pakar yang kebolehterimaan yang tinggi di mahkamah dan dibuktikan bahawa ini tidak dilakukan oleh SP1 semasa perbicaraan, tiada ‘hash function’ dan ‘hash value’ yang dinyatakan bagi membezakan ‘metadata’ setiap fail yang telah dikemukan oleh beliau. Di mana perbezaan di antara undang-undang dan keterangan saintifik yang selalunya dinyatakan di dalam bentuk binary: sains mencari kebenaran, undang-undang melaksanakan keadilan; sains bersifat deskriptif, manakala undang-undang bersifat preskriptif; sains menekankan perkembangannya, manakala undang-undang menekankan prosesnya.

Persamaan di antara sains dan undang-undang yang selalunya mereka meraikan suatu keunikan komitmen sains terhadap ujian bersistematik bagi setiap pemerhatian dan kebolehterimaan terhadap hujahan yang menjuruskan kepada pemeriksaan saintifik secara fizikal yang kritikal, terhadap pemalsuan dan pembuktian keterangan mengenai sesuatu data. Maka, Intelek, Alasan yang munasabah dan Hukum sebagai kesimpulan dan penghakiman fakulti minda yang kognitif di mana undang-undang dipreskripsikan sebagai a priori dan sains dideskripsikan sebagai a priori yang kognitif tertakluk di dalam lingkungan kebenaran a posteriori.

Di dalam kertas penyelidikan yang dibentangkan oleh Renico Koen dari ICSA, University of Pretoria, South Africa dan Martin S. Oliver, ICSA, University of Pretoria, South Africa yang bertajuk The Use of File Timestamps in Digital Forensics(mukasurat 8 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) menyatakan:

“Event data is generated when a significant digital event occurs. Although the generated event data is of little value when viewed independently, collectively event data can produce information that can help investigators to deduce relationships between events to produce abstract views of the evidence at hand.”

Dan mereka juga telah membuat kesimpulan bahawa:

“A principle was introduced based on the concept of synergy claiming that insignificant pieces of event datum may collectively be of significant forensic importance.”

Diikuti juga di dalam kertas penyelidikan oleh Svein Yngvar Willassen yang bertajuk “Hypothesis Based Investigation of Digital Timestamps” (mukasurat 1 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) dengan jelas menerangkan di dalam abstract bahawa:

Timestamps stored on digital media play an important role in digital investigations. Unfortunately, timestamps may be manipulated, and also refer to a clock that can be erroneous, failing or maladjusted. This reduces the evidentiary value of timestamps. This paper takes the approach that historical adjustments to a clock can be hypothesized in a clock hypothesis. Clock hypotheses can then be tested for consistency with stored timestamps. A formalism for the definition and testing of a clock hypothesis is developed, and test methods for clock hypothesis consistency are demonstrated. With the number of timestamps found in typical digital investigations, the methods presented in this paper can justify clock hypotheses without having to rely on timestamps from external sources. This increases the evidentiary value of timestamps, even when the originating clock has been erroneous, failing or maladjusted.”    

 

Di dalam kes Regina v. Shipman (Harold Frederick) (1999, unreported) (mukasurat 62 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) terdapat persoalan modifikasi dan manipulasi ‘timestamps’ di mana semasa perbicaraan didapati bahawa ‘timestamp’ boleh diubah yang boleh membawa kepada penipuan metadata yang akan memberi impak besar dan nilai signifikan yang tinggi kepada analisis forensik terhadap kebolehterimaan probative evidence, kebolehpercayaan di dalam perbicaraan mahkamah.

j.          Persijilan ISO – Analisis SP1 gagal mengikut piawaian kawalan kualiti dan standard forensik komputer antarabangsa bagi ‘error’ dan ralat saintifik yang berkaitan dengan perisian dan peralatan untuk tujuan penganalisa forensik kerana SP1 telah memberi keterangan semasa pemeriksaan balas bahawa makmal beliau tidak dipersijilkan dengan standard ISO 9000 (Quality Management System in Production Environment), ISO 9001 (Quality Management), ISO 9069 (Software Quality Model), ISO 9241 (Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display), ISO 17025 (General requirements for competence of test and calibration laboratories), ISO 27001 (Information technology-Security Techniques-Information Security Management Systems) dan ISO 15489/1:2001 (mukasurat 26 Nota Keterangan) untuk pengurusan kualiti untuk prosedur, proses, perisian, peralatan forensik computer yang digunakan dan yang berkaitan dengannya. Ini merupakan satu syarat yang sangat kritikal dan penting bagi sesuatu analisis forensik komputer dapat dijalankan dengan betul dan tepat.

Semasa pemeriksaan balas SP1 telah mengesahkan ada ‘error’ semasa ujitayang dibuat dengan menggunakan ‘software Encase’. (Mukasurat 20 Nota Keterangan).

Perayu telah mengemukakan bantahan terhadap Laporan Forensik SP1 yang mana Laporan Forensik yang cuba ditender di Mahkamah bertarikh 28.7.2009 yang amat ketara berlainan dengan Laporan Forensik bertarikh 27.7.2009 yang diberikan oleh pihak pendakwaan di bawah peruntukan Seksyen 51A Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. Pihak Perayu/Tertuduh terpaksa membangkitkan bantahan apabila pihak pendakwaan sendiri tidak mematuhi prosedur-prosedur di bawah peruntukan Seksyen 51A dan Seksyen 399 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah di mana apabila pihak Pendakwaan gagal memberikan salinan di dalam tempoh waktu yang ditetapkan dan penerimaan Laporan Forensik tersebut sebagai ekshibit adalah bertentangan dengan kes-kes yang telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah di mana Mahkamah telah memutuskan bahawa apabila pihak pendakwaan gagal mematuhi tempoh penyerahan laporan yang ditetapkan di bawah Seksyen 399 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, ianya ‘fatal‘ kepada kes pendakwaan dan laporan forensik tersebut tidak boleh diterima sebagai bukti.

Berkenaan isu ini, pihak Perayu ingin merujuk kepada satu kes Ooi Lean Chai v. Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 MLJ 337 (Rep) (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) (di mukasurat 2 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Mahkamah Agung telah memutuskan bahawa Seksyen 399 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah bukan hanya bersifat prosedural tetapi mengandungi peraturan untuk kebolehterimaan laporan pakar sebagai bukti di mana sekiranya ‘proviso’ kepada Seksyen 399 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah tidak dipatuhi, laporan pakar tidak boleh diterima sebagai bukti.

100.    SP1 juga gagal memberi sebarang keterangan bagaimana beliau menjaga ‘hard disk’ tersebut selepas menerimanya dari Pegawai Penyiasat dari tarikh 13.7.2009 ke 26.7.2009 dan dari tarikh analisa ke tarikh pertama sebutan kes. Adalah dihujahkan di sini bahawa rantaian kawalan dan rantaian bukti telah terputus (“break in the chain of custody and break in the chain of evidence’). SP1 di dalam pemeriksaan semula hanya memberi keterangan seperti berikut:

     

“J         :           Ianya ada dalam kawalan saya. Disimpan dalam makmal

forensic disimpan dalam peti khas untuk hard disc yang mana kunci dipegang oleh saya sendiri.”

 

 (mukasurat 34 Nota Keterangan)

 

101.    Kes ini perlu dibezakan dengan kes-kes Mahkamah yang telah diputuskan berkenaan ‘compact disc’ (CD/VCD/DVD) kerana cakera keras mempunyai kapasiti penyimpanan data yang lebih besar dan dibandingkan dengan ‘compact disc‘, malah tiada material yang boleh dimasukkan semula ke dalam ‘compact disc’ melainkan hanya berlaku pada cakera keras – (data yang terdahulu akan terbatal (dengan izin ‘fast overwrite‘)).

102.    Apabila cakera keras tersebut dimainkan dengan set komputer yang bukan dirampas dari tempat kejadian, ianya tidak terdiri daripada satu sistem yang lengkap dan sekiranya ianya dimainkan dengan bukan sistem komputer yang asal dan komputer yang lain cakera keras tersebut telah dicemari (‘tampering with evidence‘) dan ini tidak seharusnya dibenarkan berlaku oleh Mahkamah. Dirujuk kepada buku bertajuk ‘Cyber Forensics – A Field Manual for Collecting, Examining, and Preserving Evidence of Computer Crimes’, 2nd Edition oleh Albert J. Marcella, Jr. dan Doug Menendez ms 288, 289, 276 – 281 menyatakan keperluan buku log bagi merekod setiap aktiviti siasatan dan analisis forensik wajib dinyatakan semasa perbicaraan di mahkamah.

103.    Setakat ini kes yang telah diputuskan di mahkamah Negara-negara Komanwel yang melibatkan pertuduhan mengenai cakera keras (‘hard disk’) adalah kes R v. Trapp (supra) di mana pakar telah menunjukkan kepada mahkamah penggunaan ‘hash function’ atau ‘hash algorithm’ dan ‘hash value’ merupakan proses yang sangat kritikal dan penting di samping pengimejan forensik cakera keras dilakukan sebelumnya. Di dalam kes tersebut, pakar forensik komputer telah menggunakan SHA-1 sebagai ‘hash function’, ‘hash value’ pengiraan ‘hash value’ ditunjukkan dan dibandingkan dengan salinan imej forensik bagi cakera keras semasa perbicaraan.

Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada ”Cyber Forensics : A Manual For Collecting, Examining, and Preserving Evidence of Computer Crimes, 2nd Edition, 2008, Albert J. Marcella, Jr. dan Doug Menendez di mukasurat 56 :

Hash Functions

“Hash functions, also called message digests and one-way encryption, are algorithms that, in some sense, use no key. Instead, a fixed-length hash value is computed based upon the plain text that makes it impossible for either the contents or length of the plaintext to be recovered. Hash algorithms are typically used to provide a digital fingerprint of a file’s contents, often used to ensure that the file has not been altered by an intruder or virus.  Hash functions are also commonly employed by many operating systems to encrypt passwords. Hash functions, then provide a measure of the integrity of a file.”

 

Hash Collisions

 

In its basic form, hashing is the process (typically via complex mathematically algorithms) of taking “digital fingerprints” of data to validate authenticity. The production of “hash value” is generated to ensure that duplicated data derived from original, source data is protected against tampering. A hash value is created using a specific formula that can be used at a later time (for e.g, by an independent third party) to ensure that the duplicated data is the same when the hash value was created form the source, original data. One of the advantage of utilizing hashing is in the ability to detect data tampering.”

 

104.    Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa integriti cakera keras ekshibit “P-2” bergantung kepada rantaian bukti samada dipelihara atau tidak. Mengikut  Cyber Forensics : A Manual For Collecting, Examining, and Preserving Evidence of Computer Crimes, 2nd Edition, 2008, Albert J. Marcella, Jr. dan Doug Menendez di mukasurat 288 :

 

Chain of Evidence

 

“The investigator has several tasks ahead of him or her and must follow certain procedures to ensure that the evidence is solid and will hold up in court. The basic criterions, which must exist in order for this to occur, are as follows:

 

1.         No possible evidence is damages, destroyed, or otherwise compromised by the procedures used to investigate the computer.

 

2.         Extracted and possibly relevant evidence is properly handled and protected form later mechanical or electromagnetic damages

 

3.         A continuing chain of custody is established and maintained

 

4.         All procedures and findings are thoroughly documented.”

 

105.    Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa peruntukkan Seksyen 36(1) dan (2) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 perlu diaplikasi di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. Begitu juga prinsip yang diputuskan di dalam kes PP v. Lee Swee Sing [2009] 1 CLJ 320 :

(b) tiada sebarang keraguan tentang identiti barang-barang kes yang dirampas pada hari kejadian dengan barang-barang kes yang dikemukakan di dalam mahkamah

106.    Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kaedah mendapatkan imej seperti di dalam buku “Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations, 3rd edition, 2008, oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinger dan Christopher Steuart di Mukasurat 52 hingga 53 :

“Acquiring an Image of Evidence Media

After you retrieve and secure the evidence, you’re ready to copy the evidence media and analyze data. The first rule of computer forensics is to preserve the original evidence.Then conduct your analysis only on a copy of the data-the image of the original medium. Several vendors MS-DOS, Linux and Windows-based acquisition tools. Windows tools, however, require a write-blocking device when acquiring data from FAT or NTFS file systems (Write-blockers are discussed in Chapter 4.)”

Buku “Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations, 3rd edition, 2008, oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinger dan Christopher Steuart di Mukasurat 103 :

“Data Acquisition

“Data acquisition is the process of copiying data. For computer forensics, it’s the task of collecting digital evidence form electronic media. There are two types of data acquisition: Static acquisition and live acquisition…”

 

Buku “Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations, 3rd edition, 2008, oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinger dan Christopher Steuart di Mukasurat 131 :

Validating Data Acquisitions

Probably the most critical aspect of computer forensics is validating digital evidence. The weakest point of any digital investigation is the integrity ofd the data you collect, so validation is essential…”

Mengikut keterangan SP1 beliau menggunakan perisian EnCase dan mendakwa menggunakan Solo Imager 3 tetapi tidak dibawa semasa perbicaraan. Kedua-dua perisian dan peralatan tersebut menggunakan algorithm MD5 sebagai algorithm utama pengesahan kandungan data cakera keras (“hard disk”) di mana MD5 merupakan satu algorithm yang sudah tidak diteirmapakai mengikut kaedah forensik komputer kerana terdapat “hash collision” yang ketara. Tambahan lagi imej tidak dibawa untuk pembuktian kes di Mahkamah.

Keterangan SP1 :

“Hard disc itu, saya ada jalankan analisis untuk dapatkan bukti ujian Perisian ENCASE. Saya guna imager yang dipanggil SOLO 3 untuk imager hard disc itu ke imager ke hard disc lain. Hard disc yang satu lagi saya akan tandakan hard disc Desk Tar berkenaan. Kemudian saya serahkan fast block untuk baca hard disc tersebut supaya data tidak berubah dalam hard disc tersebut. Disambung dengan system unit yang sama kita kenali ENCASE digunakan untuk analisa hard disc tersebut.

 

(mukasurat 31 Rekod Rayuan)

 

“C        :           Semasa proses itu Inspektor tidak date data dengan

membuat imej?

 

  J        :           Saya buat image

 

C         :           Mana imej itu?

 

J          :           Saya tidak bawa.”

Buku “Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations, 3rd edition, 2008, oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinger dan Christopher Steuart di Mukasurat 185 :

Obtaining A Digital Hash

 

To verify data integrity, different methods of obtaining a unique identity for file data have been developedOne of the first methods, the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) is a mathematical algorithm that determines whether a file’s contents have changed. The mosy recent verison is CRC-32. CRC, however, is not considered a forensic hash algorithm. The first algorithm for computer forensics use was Message Digest 5 (MD5). Like CRC, MD5 is a mathematical formula that translate a file into a hexadecimal code value, or a hash value. If a bit or byte in the file changes, it alters the digital hash, a unique hexadecimal value that identifies a file ro drive. (Before you process or analyze a file, you can use a software tool to calculate its digital hash.)After you process the file, you produce another digital hash.If it’s the same as the original one, you can verify the integrity of your digital evidence with mathematical proof that the file didn’t change.

 

According to work done by Wang Xiaoyun and her associates from Beijing’s Tsinghua University and Shandong University of Technology, there are three rules for forensic hashes :

 

  • You can’t predict the hash value of a file or device.
  • No two hash values can be the same. (Note: Collisions have occurred in research unsing supercomputers)
  • If anything changes in the file or deivce, the hash value must change.   

 

A newer hashing algorithm is Secure Hash Algorithm version 1 (SHA-1), developed by the National of Standards and Technology (NIST). SHA-1 is slowly replacing MD5 and CRC-32, although MD5 is still widely used.”

 

Buku “Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations, 3rd edition, 2008, oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinger dan Christopher Steuart di Mukasurat  369 :

“Using Hash Values to Discriminate Data

“In chapter 7, you learned using the discrimination function to sort known good files from suspicious files. The discrimination function is useful in limiting the amount of data you have examine, and many current computer forensics tools offer this function.

 

AccessData has a separate database, the Known File Filter (KFF), which is available only with FTK, KFF filters known program files from views, such as MSWOrd.exe, and identifies known illegal files, such as child pornography. KFF compares known file hash values to files on your evidence dirve or image files to see whether they contain suspicious data. Periodically, AccessData updates these known file hash values and posts an updated KFF. As mentioned in Chapter 7, the National Software reference Library (NSRL;www.nsrl.nist.gov) also maintains a national database of updated file hash values for a variety of Oss, applications, and  images.”

Cyber Forensics : A Manual For Collecting, Examining, and Preserving Evidence of Computer Crimes, 2nd Edition, 2008, Albert J. Marcella, Jr. dan Doug Menendez di mukasurat 279 :

Chain of Custody

The chain of custody begins when an item of evidence is collected, and the chain is maintained until the evidence is disposed of. The chain of custody assures continuous accountability. This accountability is important because, if not properly maintained, an item (of evidence) may be inadmissible in court.”

     

Buku “Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations, 3rd edition, 2008, oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinger dan Christopher Steuart di Mukasurat 158 :

Understanding Rules of Evidence

…Computer records are usually divided into computer generated records and computer-stored records. Computer-generated records are data the system maintains, such as system log files and proxy server logs. They are output generated from a computer process or algorithm, not usually data a person creates. Computer-stored records, however, are electronic data that a person creates and saves on a computer, such as a spreadsheet or word processing document. Some records combine computer-generated and computer-stored evidence, such as spreadsheet containing mathematical operations (computer generate drecords) generated from a perosn’s input (computer-stored records).” 

107.    Oleh itu jelas terdapat ‘lacunae’di dalam undang-undang di Malaysia berkenaan pembuktian kes melibatkan cakera keras dan Majistret Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 seharusnya menggunapakai peruntukkan Seksyen 5 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah di mana undang-undang di England digunapakai untuk prosedur pembuktian kes melibatkan cakera keras.

108.    Hujahan-hujahan Perayu berkenaan cara analisis SP1 tidak dicabar langsung oleh Pihak Pendakwaan samada pada peringkat di akhir kes pendakwaan dan di peringkat kes pembelaan. Sehingga rayuan ini pihak Pendakwaan gagal mengemukakan sebarang otoriti untuk menunjukkan bahawa SP1 telah melakukan analisa mengikut kaedah piawaian forensik antarabangsa untuk cakera keras.

109.    Oleh yang demikian, pihak Pendakwaan gagal membuktikan melampaui keraguan munasabah bahawa kaedah analisa SP1 mengikut kaedah piawaian forensik antarabangsa.

Isu 106 Klip Video Tersebut Mestilah Lucah di Sisi Undang-undang

 

110.    Di dalam kes PP v. Chung Wan Li (supra), di dalam membuktikan sama ada bahan tersebut adalah lucah, Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan bahawa:

“2nd Ground

 

Under the 2nd ground the prosecution submitted that the learned Magistrate had erred in law and in fact when he came to his finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that all of exh. P1, ie, the remaining 14 VCD (video cakera padat) seized are obscene films and disregarded PW5′s evidence that the result of a screen test conducted on the seized items has shown that all these items are obscene films.

 

Under the 2nd ground, in my view, it would be unsafe for the court to solely rely on PW5′s evidence that he had conducted a screen test on all the 18 VCD’s and that they were all obscene films because I find that exh. P5 which was prepared by him in respect of the 18 VCDs handed to him lacked evidential value and besides there was a material contradiction as from whom he received the 18 VCDs (discussed earlier).

 

Therefore, the screening of each and everyone of the 18 VCDs is necessary to determine whether they were obscene films becomes critical. Here as per the finding of the learned Magistrate not only were only four VCDs screened but unfortunately the titles of the four VCDs were not even identified. Hence, there is no evidence before the court of which of the four VCDs out of the 18 VCDs exh. P1 (A-R) were of obscene material and neither was there proof whether the remaining 14 VCDs were of obscene material or otherwise.

 

I agree with the defence that the learned Magistrate should not be faulted just because he had allowed the prosecution’s application to conduct random screening. In my opinion the permission granted by the learned Magistrate is not tantamount to a waiver of the burden emplaced on the prosecution to prove each and every essential ingredient of the charge for purposes of establishing a prima facie case. It is the duty of the prosecution throughout to establish a prima facie case and it is not for the learned Magistrate, as pointed out by the defence, to tell them as to the correct procedure to be adopted.

111.    Di dalam kes PP v. Lee Swee Sing (supra), di dalam membuktikan sama ada bahan tersebut adalah lucah, Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan bahawa:

“Intipati (b)

 

[9] Berdasarkan keterangan, SP1 ada membuat rampasan terhadap barang-barang kes. Namun begitu, adalah didapati tiada sebarang penandaan dibuat pada mana-mana bahagian pada VCD dan DVD lucah yang dirampas. Setelah barang-barang kes diserahkan kepada SP3 (C/Insp. Saifulnizam bin Mohamed Jais), SP3 juga tidak membuat apa-apa tanda pada barang-barang kes yang diterima dan menyimpan barang-barang kes tersebut di bilik stor barang kes. Penjaga stor pula tidak dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan di mahkamah. Kemungkinan bahawa barang-barang kes ini telah bercampur-aduk dengan barang kes untuk kes yang lain tidak dapat diketepikan.

 

[10] Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan keputusan Majistret apabila beliau mendapati senarai bongkar (eks. P3) yang merujuk kepada senarai VCD dan DVD lucah yang dirampas adalah tidak lengkap. Terdapat sepuluh keping VCD dan DVD lucah dalam bahasa Cina tidak dinyatakan tajuk (“title”) dan begitu juga dengan empat keping DVD dalam bahasa Cina yang tidak dinyatakan tajuk. Dalam eksh. P3 cuma dinyatakan seperti berikut: “pelbagai tajuk VCD/DVD lucah dalam bahasa Cina”. Dalam perkara ini, saya bersetuju dengan penghakiman dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Chung Wan Li [2005] 8 CLJ 501, di mana Hakim Lau Bee Lan memutuskan:

 

… the principle to be gleaned is the effect of non-compliance of the provision governing a search list merely cast doubt on the bona fides of the parties conducting the search and then becomes incumbent on the trial judge to scrutinize the evidence further whether a prima facie has made out.

 

In the context of the present case, the identity of the 18 VCDs is central to proving that the accused had possession of them and the absence of the listing of each of the titles of the 18 VCDs greatly weakens the case for the prosecution.

 

Intipati (c)

 

[11] Timbalan pendakwa raya terpelajar menghujahkan bahawa kesemua VCD dan DVD lucah yang dirampas telah dibuktikan mengandungi adegan lucah. Dengan hormat, mahkamah ini tidak bersetuju. Walaupun pihak pendakwaan telah mendapat kebenaran dari mahkamah Majistret untuk menjalankan uji tayang secara rawak terhadap barang-barang kes, namun begitu, adalah menjadi tugas pihak pendakwaan untuk membuktikan kes mereka sepanjang perbicaraan. Hanya sepuluh keping dari VCD dan DVD lucah yang dirampas dibuat uji tayang di mahkamah Majistret dan sepuluh keping VCD/DVD yang dibuat uji tayang itu juga tidak dinyatakan tajuk-tajuknya. Tidak terdapat mana-mana peruntukan dalam Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 yang menyatakan bahawa penayangan sejumlah VCD/DVD yang dirampas yang dipercayai mengandungi adegan lucah akan dianggap sebagai telah membuktikan bahawa keseluruhan VCD/DVD tersebut mengandungi adegan lucah. Oleh yang demikian, setiap satu VCD/DVD yang dirampas itu perlu dibuat uji tayang. Keadaan ini adalah berbeza, misalnya, dengan peruntukan yang jelas dibawah s. 37(j) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang menyatakan bahawa adalah mencukupi jika sampel dadah diambil tidak kurang dari 10% bekas (receptacles) yang mengandungi dadah berbahaya (lihat kes-kes Gunalan Ramachandran & Ors v. PP[2004] 4 CLJ 551; Chu Tak Fai v. PP [2006] 4 CLJ 931 dan PP v. Seow Wei Hoong[2008] 4 CLJ 453).

 

[12] Dalam perkara ini, saya juga bersetuju dengan penghakiman dalam kes Public Prosecutor v. Chung Wan Li (supra) apabila hakim dipetik berkata:

 

Therefore, the screening of each and everyone of the 18 VCDs is necessary to determine whether they were obscene films becomes critical. Here as per the finding of the learned magistrate not only were only four VCDs screened but unfortunately the titles of the four VCDs were not even identified. Hence, there is no evidence before the court of which the four VCDs out of the 18 VCDs Exh P1 (A-R) were of obscene material and neither was there proof whether the remaining 14 VCDs were of obscene material or otherwise.

 

I agree with the defence that the learned magistrate should not be faulted just because he had allowed the prosecution’s application to conduct random screening. In my opinion, the permission granted by the learned magistrate is not tantamount to a waiver of the burden emplaced on the prosecution to prove each and every essential ingredient of the charge for purposes of establishing a prima facie case. It is the duty of the prosecution throughout to establish a prima facie case and it is not for the learned magistrate, as pointed out by the defence, to tell them as to the correct procedure to be adopted.

 

[13] Keputusan bahawa terdapat keraguan yang munasabah sama ada barang-barang kes yang dirampas pada hari kejadian adalah sama dengan barang-barang kes yang dikemukakan di dalam mahkamah dan sama ada kesemua VCD dan DVD yang dirampas itu mengandungi adegan lucah (“obscene material”) adalah penemuan fakta yang dibuat oleh Puan Majistret berdasarkan kepada keterangan yang dikemukakan di hadapan beliau di mana beliau mempunyai kelebihan untuk melihat dan mendengar saksi-saksi berkenaan. Penemuan fakta adalah merupakan fungsi eksklusif mahkamah bicara (lihat PP v. Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457). Perkara ini telah menjadi undang-undang yang mantap. Dalam kes Herchun Singh & Ors v. PP [1969] 1 LNS 52, Ong Hock Thye, KH berkata:

 

An appellate court should be slow in disturbing such finding on fact arrived at by the judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness, unless there are substantial and compelling reasons for disagreeing with the finding: see Sheo Swarup v. King- Emperor AIR [1934] PC 227.

 

[14] Mahkamah ini berpuas hati bahawa tidak terdapat apa-apa alasan untuk memutuskan bahawa Puan Majistret telah “mishandling the fact” dalam kes ini. Keputusan selainnya oleh Puan Majistret akan bertentangan dengan keberatan keterangan (“weight of evidence”) yang ada di hadapan mahkamah.

 

[15] Kesan terkumpul undang-undang terhadap keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dalam kes ini telah menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pihak pendakwaan. Terdapat jurang yang tidak dipenuhi oleh pihak pendakwaan terutama yang berhubung dengan identiti ekshibit dan adegan lucah. Perkara ini memudaratkan kes pihak pendakwaan. Dalam kes Mohan Singh Lachman Singh v. PP [2002] 3 CLJ 293, Mahkamah Rayuan membuat pemerhatian:

 

The burden of proving its case at every stage lies on the prosecution. The only task of the accused is to raise a reasonable doubt as to the prosecution’s case. If there are gaps in the case for the prosecution, these cannot be filled by resorting to a purported failure on the part of the defence to put specific questions relevant to its case. Such gaps must be filled by the prosecution itself: Abdullah Zawawi v. PP [1985] CLJ 19 (Rep); [1985] 2 CLJ 2; [1985] 2 MLJ 16. That has always been the law. It is still the law.

 

[16] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dikemukakan di atas, mahkamah ini memutuskan bahawa rayuan timbalan pendakwa raya tidak mempunyai merit. Dengan itu, rayuan ditolak dan keputusan Puan Majistret yang melepas dan membebaskan responden di akhir kes pendakwaan bagi pertuduhan kedua dikekalkan.”

112.    Di dalam kes PP v. Kok Seong Yoon (supra), di dalam membuktikan sama ada bahan tersebut adalah lucah di sisi undang-undang, Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan bahawa:

“Screen Testing For Obscenity

 

[15] However, I find that the second vital ingredient in this case, ie, that the 65 DVDs are obscene was not proved.

 

15.1. There is no evidence at all that the 65 DVDs were subject to a screen test (uji tayang) for the court to make a finding that the 65 DVDs are obscene.

 

15.2. SP1 merely testified that he was satisfied that the 65 DVDs were obscene by looking at the covers of the DVDs.

 

15.3. SP4, the I.O. of the case, said he had screen tested them at random in his office and found them to be obscene.

 

15.4. Although at one point of the proceedings the learned APP applied to reserve screen-testing of the DVDs, the learned defence counsel had responded that there was no need for screen-testing (p. 29 of Appeal Record). Unfortunately the court appeared to have agreed with learned defence counsel because nowhere in the notes of evidence does it appear that screen testing was done.

 

[16] In the case of PP v. Chung Wan Li [2005] 8 CLJ 501 HC, the learned High Court judge held that “the screening of each and everyone of the 18 VCD’s is necessary to determine whether they were obscene films”. In Chung’s case (supra), the learned High Court judge did not approve of the random testing that was conducted during the trial.

 

[17] His Lordship Mohd. Zawawi Salleh, JC, concurred with the learned High Court judge in the case of PP v. Lee Swee Sing [2009] 1 CLJ 320 HC. His Lordship held in Lee Swee Sing’s case that there is no provision in the Film Censorship Act 2002 which allows for random testing. A comparison was drawn with the provision of s. 37(j) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 which allowed for a 10% of the sample of the drugs to be tested.

 

[18] In this case, there was no screen testing at all carried out during the trial. How then can the court arrive at a finding that the 65 DVDs are obscene? It is patently clear that the prosecution had failed to prove that the 65 DVDs were obscene and the learned magistrate should have so found.

 

[19] For the reasons as adumbrated above the acquittal and discharge of the respondent is hereby affirmed as the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against the respondent as per the charge.

 

[20] The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

113.    Apa yang boleh difahamkan daripada ketiga-tiga kes di atas, kesemua jumlah bahan yang tercatat di dalam kertas pertuduhan mestilah dibuktikan lucah di sisi undang-undang. Sekiranya satu bahan tidak lucah, maka si tertuduh mestilah dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan tersebut kerana tidak terdapat mana-mana peruntukan dalam Akta Penapisan Filem 2002yang menyatakan bahawa penayangan sejumlah VCD/DVD yang dirampas yang dipercayai mengandungi adegan lucah akan dianggap sebagai telah membuktikan bahawa keseluruhan VCD/DVD tersebut mengandungi adegan lucah.

114.    Pihak pendakwaan telah memanggil SP1 untuk memberi keterangan bahawa 106 klip video tersebut adalah lucah. SP1 telah memberi keterangan (di mukasurat 4 – 11 Nota Keterangan) bahawa:

Ada 150 video. Dalam senarai, ada 106 yang lucah. Saya ada list saya buat dalam list laporan forensic saya.

SP1 seterusnya telah diberi keterangan bahawa di antara klip video tersebut adalah lucah, tidak lucah, tidak dapat dimainkan, ada gambar lucah, tiada video lucah, tiada bahan lucah, tidak boleh dimainkan, mohon delete temporary file.

115.    Oleh itu, melalui keterangan SP1 dan Ekshibit P35 (Laporan Analisa), jumlah klip video yang dikatakan lucah tidak sampai 106. Maka, pihak Pendakwaan tidak berjaya membuktikan intipati ini menurut undang-undang.

116.    Bilangan klip video lucah sebanyak 106 klip tersebut sebenarnya tidak dapat dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan kerana terdapat klip video yang berulang-ulang dan mempunyai kandungan yang sama tetapi nama fail yang berbeza (mukasurat 5 Nota Keterangan). Terdapat klip-klip video yang tidak dapat dimainkan seperti dancewater.avi, dcmonument.avi dan moonrise.avi, ROSEBLOOM.avi, video001.avi, V10raw.mpg dan V137raw.mpg (mukasurat 5, 6 dan 13 Nota Keterangan). Ada klip-klip video yang tidak keluar (mukasurat 13 Nota Keterangan). Ada yang tiada kandungan lucah (mukasurat 5,6,7 dan 13 Nota Keterangan). Ada klip yang tidak dapat dibaca seperti V10.raw.mpg (mukasurat 7 Nota Keterangan). Ada klip video yang tidak lucah tetapi ditandakan sebagai bahan lucah seperti Sato1.mpg dan sato2.mpg (mukasurat 6 Nota Keterangan).

117.    Pegawai Penyiasat (SP7) juga tidak menyediakan senarai klip video lucah tersebut kerana tiada senarai diberikan mengikut Seksyen 51A Kanun Prosedur Jenayah. Sekiranya pihak Pendakwaan mendakwa senarai klip video yang dilampirkan bersama Laporan Forensik (ekshibit “P35”) maka senarai tersebut tidak boleh diambilkira kerana Laporan Forensik tersebut telah dicabar kesahihannya dengan jumlah uji tayang yang dibuat di Mahkamah dan penerimaan Laporan Forensik tersebut sebagai ekshibit tidak mengikut lunas undang-undang.

118.    Pihak Perayu turut berhujah bahawa setiap satu daripada 106 klip video yang berlainan tajuk dan menjadi asas pertuduhan tidak ditanda sebagai ekshibit. Ini dapat dibuktikan dengan tiada keterangan direkodkan di dalam Nota-nota Keterangan sehingga 6.1.2011.

119.    Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang apabila memutuskan bahawa setiap satu video klip yang menjadi asas pertuduhan telah dibuktikan dengan ujitayang dan dikira sebagai kandungan ekshibit “P-2” dan oleh yang demikian telah ditanda dengan teratur.

120.    Adalah dihujahkan bahawa mengikut Nota Keterangan ekshibit “P-2” adalah satu cakera keras (‘hard disk’) dan kandungan di dalam “P-2” adalah berlainan sifat dan bentuk yang perlu ditanda satu persatu. Adalah tidak munasabah membuat keputusan memandangkan bahawa klip-klip video tersebut berada di dalam “P-2” maka ianya adalah “P-2”.

121.    Perayu  bersandarkan kepada satu kes Mahkamah Rayuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) (mukasurat 10 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) di dalam kes Malayan Banking Berhad lawan Boh Wee Siah (Rayuan Sivil 2010) di mana pihak Plaintif telah gagal mengemukakan dokumen Perjanjian Jualbeli Lot 55 dalam Ikatan Dokumen. Semasa perbicaraan dijalankan di hadapan Hakim Dato’ Haji Azhar bin Ma’ah, Plaintif cuba memasukkan dokumen tersebut tetapi telah tidak dibenarkan. Oleh itu Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa Plaintif tidak boleh merujuk dokumen Perjanjian Jualbeli Lot 55 yang tidak terdapat dalam Ikatan Dokumen selain daripada dokumen-dokumen yang sedia ada sahaja. Mahkamah turut merujuk kepada kes Chong Khee Sang v. Pang Ah Chee [1984] 1 MLJ 377 di muka surat 381 memutuskan:

In the first place it is the duty of counsel engaged in a case to see that the documentary evidence upon which he relies is properly tendered in court and proved. After they have been proved he should also see that when admitted into evidence the documents are properly marked as required by law. Reference may be made in this connection to Immam-Ud-Din v. Sri Ram Perbhu Dial.

122.    Perayu juga turut merujuk kepada kes Pendakwa Raya v Rozaimi Bin Omar & Ors [2009] MLJU 1362 (mukasurat 13 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) di mana  Yaacob Bin Haji Md. Sam, JC telah merujuk kepada kes Chong Khee Sang v Pang Ah Chee [1984] 1 MLJ 337 isu berkaitan beban pembuktian ke atas dokumen yang hendak dikemukakan oleh plaintif sebagai eksibit bagi menyokong tuntutan plaintif dalam kes tersebut telah dibincangkan dan Y.A. Shankar J. yang memutuskan seperti berikut:

a document cannot be admitted into evidence and marked as such until  it has been properly proved.

123.    Bagi intipati kedua pertuduhan, Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa tiada definisi yang khusus bagi ‘lucah’ di dalam undang-undang.

124.    Tiada definisi bagi perkataan ‘lucah’ berdasarkan perundangan yang boleh digunapakai di dalam rumah samada di dalam Akta Tafsiran 1948 dan 1967, Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 dan Kanun Kesiksaan.

125.    Mengikut Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes, Volume 1, 24th Edition di mukasurat 1115 dengan jelas menerangkan bahawa:

“The word “obscene” has not been defined in the Code.”

 

126.    Definisi Lucah (‘Obscene’) atau Kelucahan (‘Obscenity’) bergantung kepada keadaan, tempat dan konteks semasa ianya berlaku. Apabila seseorang tanpa seurat benang di tubuh berada di rumahnya tanpa kehadiran orang luar tiada sesiapa boleh mengatakan bahawa beliau berkelakuan lucah. Keadaan yang sama juga jika sesuatu rakaman dibuat di dalam rumah dengan diri sendiri tanpa kehadiran orang lain atau dengan kehadiran pasangan yang sah di sisi undang-undang sahaja berada di rumah di mana di dalam konteks tersebut perlakuan tidak dikira bersifat lucah. Kesopanan awam hanya meliputi luar premis persendirian dan lucah tidak didefinisikan secara khusus di dalam perundangan.

127.    Di dalam kes-kes ‘compact disc’ (CD/VCD/DVD), ‘compact disc’ (CD/VCD/DVD) tersebut diedar, dijual  dan disebarkan untuk orang awam yang sudah tentu akan memberi kesan kepada orang awam terutamanya golongan muda yang memilikinya. Ini berbeza dengan kes ini di mana pihak polis telah memasuki premis tanpa waran geledah yang sah di sisi undang-undang dan rampasan harta peribadi dibuat yang jelas bukan untuk tatapan umum.

128.    Perayu/Tertuduh selanjutnya berhujah bahawa definisi ‘lucah’ yang diterima oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur berdasarkan keterangan SP1 dan SP2 adalah amat dangkal dan tidak berasaskan pinsip-prinsip undang-undang sebagaimana prinsip-prinsip undang-undang yang dirujuk oleh Perayu/Tertuduh mengikut Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes, Volume 1, 24th Edition.

 

129.    Oleh yang demikian, kesimpulan yang tidak dapat dielakkan ialah Perayu di dalam kes kita pada hari ini tidak mempunyai kandungan lucah di sisi undang-undang pada setiap masa yang material, bahan yang dikatakan lucah tersebut.

130.    Bagi isu ‘breach of privacy’, Pihak Perayu ingin merujuk kepada satu kes Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes Chong Chieng Jen lawan Mohd Irwan Hafiz bin Md Radzi & Anor  [2009] 8 MLJ 364 (di mukasurat 7 Ikatan Otoriti  Perayu) di mana komputer riba pemohon telah dirampas apabila satu waran geledah dikeluarkan oleh Majistret apabila pemohon disyaki menyimpan bahan berunsur hasutan. Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan untuk mengetepikan waran geledah dan memerintahkan komputer riba dikembalikan kepada Pemohon. Di dalam kes ini Rhodzariah Bujang JC menyatakan seperti berikut:

The requirement for ‘information’ and ‘reason to believe’ is mandatory because the execution of the warrant willl definitely result in the invasion of the privacy and property of the owner of the premises so named and may even result in the consfication of his property. A person’s privacy and the right to his property are very basic rights of a man and that to his property is even enshrined under Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution.”

131.    Pihak Perayu ingin merujuk kepada kes Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) (mukasurat 7 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu):

[ Footnote 7 ] The Supreme Court of Ohio considered the issue in State v. Mapp, 170 Ohio St. 427, 166 N. E. 2d 387 (1960). Four of the seven judges of that court felt that criminal prosecution for mere private possession of obscene materials was prohibited by the Constitution. However, Ohio law required the concurrence of “all but one of the judges” to declare a state law unconstitutional. The view of the “dissenting” judges was expressed by Judge Herbert:

“I cannot agree that mere private possession of . . . [obscene] literature by an adult should constitute a crime. The right of the individual to read, to believe or disbelieve, and to think without governmental supervision is one of our basic liberties, but to dictate to the mature adult what books he may have in his own private library seems to the writer to be a clear infringement of his constitutional rights as an individual.” 170 Ohio St., at 437, 166 N. E. 2d, at 393.

132.    Adalah mustahil sesuatu tempat itu digeledah terlebih dahulu sebelum adanya ‘First Information Report’ atau sesuatu tempat itu digeledah mendahului ‘First Information Report’. Tambahan lagi Laporan Analisa oleh SP1 adalah berkenaan dengan Dang Wang Rpt 29694/09 bersabit Jalan Patani Rpt 5070/2009.

133.    Laporan Polis Jalan Patani Report 5070/2009 sebagai ‘First Information Report’ adalah amat penting di dalam kes ini memandangkan penggeledahan dan pemeriksaan Premis tersebut pada Tarikh tersebut adalah berkenaan dengan Laporan Polis Jalan Patani tersebut. Perayu/Tertuduh semasa memberi keterangan di dalam pemeriksaan utama telah memohon agar Laporan Polis Jalan Patani Report No. 5070/09 tersebut ditanda sebagai “ID” tetapi disebabkan Pengadu Norina Zainol Abidin tidak dapat dipanggil kerana ditolak oleh Mahkamah, salinan laporan polis tersebut ditender mengikut Seksyen 173(j)(iii) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah.

134.    SP-5 memberi keterangan bahawa tiada waran untuk melakukan penggeledahan dan pemeriksaan tersebut. Bagi situasi ini, pihak pendakwaan mestilah mematuhi Seksyen.62 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah dan segala intipati Seksyen 62 tersebut mestilah dipenuhi terlebih dahulu sebelum membuat pemeriksaan atau penggeledahan tanpa waran. Tiada apa-apa keterangan mengenai situasi ini maka penggeledahan atau pemeriksaan pada Tarikh tersebut di Bangunan tersebut adalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang.

135.    Pihak Pendakwaan telah memanggil saksi pendakwaan pertama (SP1) sebagai saksi pakar. Pengadu asal tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi. Maklumat pertama (“First Information Report’) adalah dari seorang bernama Norina Zainol Abidin yang tidak dipanggil oleh pihak pendakwaan sebagai saksi pertama kerana berdasarkan laporan beliau, polis telah datang ke premis tersebut pada 13.7.2009 tanpa waran geledah dan alasan yang munasabah untuk memasuki premis tersebut. Laman web yang dikatakan lucah http://www.kelabseksmelayu.wordpress.com merupakan laman blog yang kosong. Oleh itu tidak wujud isu kelucahan atau isu yang melanggar kesopanan awam pada laman blog tersebut. Amat ketara bahawa laporan pertama tersebut tidak benar dan merupakan laporan yang palsu yang sengaja direka-reka oleh Pengadu asal untuk menceroboh hak persendirian Perayu/Tertuduh. Oleh yang demikian cakera keras (‘hard disc’) yang ditender sebagai ekshibit tidak sepatutnya dirampas pada hakikat sebenarnya kerana tiada peralatan atau peranti atau modem atau talian rangkaian yang dilanggani pada tarikh 13hb. Julai, 2009 yang dijumpai di tempat kejadian mengikut seksyen 248 Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998.

136.    Pihak Perayu ingin merujuk kepada buku “Guide To Computer Forensics and Investigations, 3rd Edition, 2008 oleh Bill Nelson, Amelia Phillips, Frank Enfinger dan Christopher Steuart, di mukasurat 442, ‘Network Forensics” dimaksudkan bagi siasatan mengenai rangkaian adalah seperti berikut:

“Network Forensics is the process of collecting and analyzing raw network data and systematically tracking network traffic to ascertain how an attack was carried out or how an event occurred on a network. Because network attacks are on rise, there’s more focus on this field ans increasing demand for skilled technician. Labor forecasts predict a shortfall of 50,000 network forensic specialists in law enforcement, legal firms, corporations, and universities.

 

When intruders break into a network they leave a trail behind. Being able to spot variations in network traffic can help you track intrusions, so knowing your network’s typical traffic patterns is important. For example, the primary IPS in Windhoek, Namibia has peak hours of use between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. because most people in that city have internet access only at work. If a usage spike occurred durignt he night, the network administrator on duty would recognize it as unusual activity and could take steps to investigate it…

 

Network forensics examiners must establish standard procedures for how to acquire data after an attack or intrusion incident. Typically, network administrator want to find compromised machines, get them offline, and restore them as quickly as possible to minimize downtime. However, taking the time to follow standard procedures is essential to ensure that all compromised machines have been found and to ascertain attack methods in an effort to prevent them from happening again… ”  

137.    Tiada sebarang keterangan daripada SP1 dan SP7 yang menerangkan bagaimana laman web tersebut dikesan daripada ‘internet protocol’ dari ‘service provider’ kepada internet yang terdapat dari premis tempat kejadian. SP5 dan SP7 mengesahkan di dalam keterangan masing-masing bahawa tiada modem atau peranti dijumpai. Apa yang boleh digarapkan daripada keterangan-keterangan ini bahawa tiada bukti kukuh mengaitkan tempat kejadian dengan laporan pengadu “First Information Report”. SP5 memberi keterangan bahawa set komputer tidak disambung ke sumber kuasa dan tidak berfungsi. Beliau menyatakan bahawa komputer di tempat kejadian rosak. Oleh yang demikian bagaimana cakera keras (‘hard disk’) boleh dirampas sedangkan untuk akses kepada internet memerlukan peranti modem, talian internet yang pada masa material membawa satu internet protocol (IP) yang unik yang boleh dikesan dan dikaitkan dengan “MAC address” (Networking Card) pada komputer yang disyaki tersebut. Tiada keterangan mengenai analisis forensik rangkaian dan analisis forensik Facebook yang dibuat oleh SP1 untuk membuktikan bahawa Perayu/Tertuduh boleh dikaitkan dengan laman web yang dinyatakan sebelum ini. Nama Domain (‘domain name’) http://www.kelabseksmelayu.wordpress.com tidak dibuktikan siapa tuanpunya atau pemiliknya atau siapa yang mendaftar ‘domain name’ tersebut  :

“Q        : Apa alasan kamu untuk masuk ke rumah itu pada 13.07.2009?

A         : SP1 telah membuat laporan polis dan m.o adalah sama. Berdasarkan maklumat dan laporan SP1 saya pergi ke situ.”

 

(Mukasurat 73 Nota Keterangan)

Mengikut Buku TCP/IP dan Networking oleh Abdul Latiff bin Esa, Cetakan Pertama 2006 di mukasurat 30, IP address yang sah dimaksudkan seperti berikut:

 

IP address yang valid

 

Terdapat beberapa nilai yang perlu dipatuhi bagi memastikan penggunaan IP address yang sesuai digunakan pada sesuatu host. Berikut ini adalah beberapa ketetapan yang perlu dituruti.

 

  • IP address tidak sepatutnya bermula dengan angka 0,127 atau 255. Sebagai contoh, IP address 127.x.y.z, 0.x.y.z atau 255x.y.z sememangnya tidak valid.

 

  • IP address bagi suatu komputer tidak boleh diakhiri dengan 0 atau 255 pada octet keempat. Misalnya IP address w.x.y.255 adalah tidak valid, kerana ia dikategorikan sebagai broadcast. IP address w.x.y.0 juga tidak boleh digunakan kerana ia dikategorikan pula sebagai network Id.

 

  • IP address mestilah unik bagi penggunaan setiap komputer di dalam sesuatu network. Sebagai contoh, kedua-dua komputer A dan komputer B tidak boleh menggunakan IP address 10.1.1.1 dengan nilai subnet mask yang sama iaitu 255.255.0.0.”   

138.    Pihak Perayu turut merujuk kepada mukasurat 235 hingga 239 Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2 di mana tiada carian atau semakan dibuat berkenaan pemilik laman web http://www.all4sure.com.

139.    Di samping itu tiada keterangan daripada SP1 dan SP7 bahawa Perayu adalah ‘friend’ yang diterima oleh Pengadu asal untuk akaun ‘Facebook’ Pengadu asal. Oleh itu tiada bukti yang menunjukkan bahawa Perayu ada akses kepada maklumat akaun ‘Facebook’ Pengadu asal.

Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada satu kes Mahkamah Tinggi berkaitan internet dan ‘domain name’ Petroliam Nasional Bhd v. Khoo Nee Kiong [2003] 4 MLJ 216 (mukasurat 230-231 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu):

[35] I also reproduce below the following excerpt from the judgment of Aldous LJ in British Telecommunications plc and another v One In A Million Ltd and others and other actions [1998] 4 All ER 476 at p480-481 which explains in very simple terms what is internet and which also adopts the explanation by the learned trial judge, Jonathan Sumption QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on what is domain name:

At its simplest the internet is a collection of computers which are connected through the telephone network to communicate with each other.

As explained by the judge [1998] FSR 265 at p 267:

 

The internet is increasingly used by commercial organizations to promote themselves and their products and in some cases to buy and sell. For these purposes they need a domain name identifying the computer which they are using. A domain name comprises groups of alphanumeric characters separated by dots. A first group commonly comprises the name of the enterprise or a brand name or trading name associated with it, followed by a ‘top level’ name identifying the nature and sometimes the location of the organization….

 

Members of the public would not ordinarily have a domain name. They would subscribe to a service provider and have an e-mail address. That enables a subscriber to send a message to another computer through the service provider, which forwards the message requested to the appropriate computer. The subscriber can also browse around the world wide web and seek web pages associated with a particular domain name. Thus if he transmits a domain name and the web pages sought and provide the information obtained.”    

140.    Pihak Perayu bersandarkan kepada satu kes Frangione v. Vandadongen [2010] O. J. No. 2337 (mukasurat 8 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Mahkamah Agung Ontario memutuskan seperti berikut:

[33] Counsel have referred to several cases in Ontario that have dealt with the relatively new issue of production of the contents of Facebook sites given the proliferation of social networking sites. Our courts have observed and accepted that “Facebook” is a social networking sites used by members to communicate information about one’s personal life to other members of the Facebook community. When a person registers with Facebook, at http://www.facebook.com website, he creates his own profile and privacy settings. Profile information is displayed to people in the networks specified by the user in his privacy settings e.g a user may choose to make his private profile information available to others within his school, geographic area, employment network, or to “friends” of “friends”. A user can set privacy options that limit access to his profile only to those to whom he grants permission the so called “friends” of the user (Murphy v. Perger, [2007] O.J. No. 5511 (S.C.J.); Leduc, supra[19] Wicev. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co.[2009] O.J. No. 2946 (S.C.J.); Kourtesis v. Joris [2007] O.J. No. 5539 (S.C.J).   

 

141.    Siasatan SP7 tidak lengkap dan oleh itu lebih menjurus kepada bersifat prejudis terhadap Perayu. Mengikut keterangan SP7 beliau terus ke Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara dan mengambil rekod mengenai Perayu walaupun tidak dibuktikan bahawa Perayu adalah suspek berdasarkan analisa forensik yang betul dan diterimapakai oleh ‘common law’. Tiada keterangan SP7 mengenai isteri pertama dan isteri pertama tidak dikenalpasti. Kemudian SP7 menyatakan kes telah ditutup.

SP7 semasa pemeriksaan balas memberi keterangan seperti berikut :

“ Q       : Siapakah yang menanda “isteri pertama” dan “isteri kedua” pada dokumen?

 

            A         :           Saya telah pergi ke JPN dan menurut rekod OKT ada dua orang                   isteri.

 

Q         :           Rekod di JPN; gambar isteri kedua ada keluar?

 

A         :           Saya buat permohonan untuk lihat gambar semasa permohonan

pendaftaran ic untuk Ainy Suhaila dan OKT.

 

            Q         :           Kamu tahu siapa dalam gambar itu?

 

            A         :           Saya rasa itu adalah isteri kepada OKT.

           

            Q         :           Pasti?

 

            A         :           Ya

 

            Q         :           Pernah jumpa dengan isteri saya?

 

            A         :           Tidak”

 

(mukasurat 74 Nota Keterangan)

 

“…Saya masuk ke rumah OKT untuk menyiasat berkaitan report Jalan Patani 5070/09. Kes itu telah ditutup.”

 

(mukasurat 79 Nota Keterangan)

 

141.    Pihak Perayu merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) Chan King Yu v Public Prosecutor [2009] 1 MLJ 457 (di mukasurat 23 dan 25 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) :

“ [70]   It was argued for the appellant that the learned judge and the Court of Appeal judges had misdirected themselves in admitting hearsay evidence and other inadmissible evidence which was highly prejudicial to the appellant. It was submitted that in respect of some of the admitted evidence there were elements of higher prejudice than probative value and the court ought to have exercised its discretion to exclude them. …

 

[75]     I am of the view from the above quoted findings in the judgment of the courts it can be said both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had acted on statements which were clearly hearsay and prejudicial to the appellant and therefore inadmissible.”

             

142.    Adalah amat jelas bahawa penyitaan barang kes pada 13.7.2009 dibuat tanpa sebab yang munasabah dan berlawanan dengan kehendak Seksyen 42 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 dan juga prinsip yang telah diputuskan di dalam kes Chong Chieng Jen lawan Mohd Irwan Hafiz bin Md Radzi & Anor (supra) dan Tertuduh berhak kepada gantirugi kerana penyitaan tanpa sebab yang munasabah bersandarkan peruntukkan Seksyen 42 Akta Penapisan Filem 2002 seperti berikut:

Tiada kos atau gantirugi yang berbangkit daripada penyitaan boleh didapatkan

 

            42.       Tiada seorang pun boleh, dalam apa-apa prosiding di hadapan mana-mana mahkamah berkenaan dengan penyitaan apa-apa filem, bahan publisit filem, buku, dokumen atau benda lain yang disita pada menjalankan atau berupa sebagai penjalanan mana-mana kuasa yang diberikan di bawah Akta ini, berhak mendapat kos prosiding itu atau apa-apa gantirugi atau relief lain melainkan jika penyitaan itu dibuat tanpa sebab yang munasabah.”

143.    Pihak Perayu menyatakan bahawa memandangkan kedua-dua intipati penting tidak dapat dibuktikan maka sabitan terhadap Perayu perlu diakas atau dibatalkan dan Perayu dilepaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan tersebut.

Isu-isu yang melibatkan ketidakadilan berlaku semasa perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut

144.    Pada 29.7.2010 Perayu tidak dapat mengutarakan soalan-soalan dengan sepenuhnya terhadap saksi pendakwaan pertama (SP1) semasa pemeriksaan balas kerana dihalang oleh Mahkamah.

145.    Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa hak Perayu telah dinafikan untuk melantik peguambela dan mendapat satu perbicaraan yang adil dan telus menurut Artikel 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Artikel 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

5. Liberty of the person.

 

(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

(2) Where complaint is made to a High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him.

 

(3) Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult by a legal practitioner of his choice.

146.    Tiada direkodkan di dalam Nota Keterangan bagi sambung perbicaraan pada 29.7.2010 mengenai permohonan penangguhan untuk melantik peguambela.

147.    Oleh itu hak Perayu untuk mendapat satu perbicaraan yang adil mengikut prinsip , dengan izin, ‘natural justice’ yang merangkumi ‘right to a fair hearing’ telah dikompromi.

148.    Bagi menyokong alasan ini pihak Perayu bersandarkan kepada satu kes

Mahkamah Persekutuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) di dalam kes Jaginder Singh & Ors v. Attorney-General [1983] 1 MLJ 71 (mukasurat 1 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) di mana Raja Azlan Shah AG LP, Abdul Hamid FJ dan AbdoolCader J membenarkan rayuan perayu di dalam kes tersebut dan memutuskan seperti berikut:

What also vitiated the committal for contempt of court in this case was the learned judge’s failure to make plain to the appellants the specific nature of the charges and the opportunity to give them a fair hearing.”

149.    Pihak Perayu juga turut merujuk kepada kes Kanda v Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322, PC, (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) (mukasurat 1 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) Lord Denning telah memutuskan bahawa:

“… The rule against bias is one thing. The right to be heard is another. Those two rules are the essential characteristics of what is called natural justice. They are the twin pillars supporting it. The Romans put them in the two maxims: Nemo judex in causa sua, and Audi alteram partem. They have recently been put in the two words, Impartiality and Fairness. But they are separate concepts and are governed by separate considerations. In the present case inspector Kanda complained of a breach of the second. He said that his constitutional right had been infringed. He had been dismissed without being given a reasonable hearing”.

150.    Adalah dihujahkan oleh Perayu bahawa hak untuk mendapat perbicaraan yang adil bukan setakat Mahkamah menyediakan pen dan notepad untuk catat nota prosiding (mukasurat 12 Nota Keterangan).

151.    Menurut Nota Keterangan, terdapat ruang (‘gap’) di antara ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan di mahkamah yang menyebabkan pihak Perayu tidak dapat berhujah sepenuhnya dan ini telah memprejudiskan Perayu. Pihak Perayu ingin menarik perhatian Mahkamah yang Mulia bahawa di dalam Nota Keterangan bagi perbicaraan dari 7.6.2010 hingga 17.8.2010 tiada keterangan mengenai ekshibit-ekshibit “P4” “P5”, “P6”, ”P7, “P8’ dan “P10”. Di sini pihak Perayu telah menunjukkan bahawa Nota-nota Keterangan yang dibekalkan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur adalah tidak sempurna dan ini boleh memprejudiskan Kes Tangkap tersebut.

152.    Selain daripada itu, setelah meneliti Nota Keterangan tersebut, banyak tokok tambah, percanggahan keterangan yang direkodkan dan juga fakta-fakta penting tidak direkodkan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur. Di antara percanggahan keterangan tersebut SP1 telah menyatakan bahawa beliau tiada sijil ENCase tetapi mengikut Nota Keterangan tersebut SP1 menyatakan bahawa beliau ada sijil dari satu syarikat dan identiti syarikat tersebut tidak dinyatakan (mukasurat 22 Nota Keterangan tersebut).

153.    Pihak Perayu juga berhujah bahawa terdapat tokok tambah di dalam Nota Keterangan pada 20.9.2010 apabila Kes Tangkap tersebut ditetapkan untuk Sebutan waran tangkap kerana Perayu tiada memaklumkan kepada Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur bahawa Perayu dilepaskan pada waktu pagi 6.9.2010 tetapi ianya direkodkan di dalam Nota Keterangan (mukasurat 58 Nota Keterangan).Ini amat memprejudiskan Perayu kerana lain alasan diberikan lain yang direkodkan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2.

154.    Perayu juga turut menyatakan bahawa Perayu tidak berpeluang untuk mengemukakan laporan polis Pengadu asal semasa pemeriksaan balas saksi pendakwaan kelima dan semasa Perayu memberi keterangan (rakaman video perbicaraan pada tarikh 13.12.2010) kerana Mahkamah sendiri tidak membenarkannya walaupun laporan polis Pengadu asal amat material di dalam Kes Tangkap Tersebut (mukasurat 47 dan 48 Nota Keterangan).

155.    Adalah turut dihujahkan bahawa Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur seharusnya memastikan Mahkamah berlaku adil kepada Perayu tambahan pula Perayu tidak diwakili peguam dan perlu mengemukakan soalan-soalan semasa pemeriksaan balas setiap saksi pendakwaan sendiri.

 

156.    NH Chan J di dalam bukunya “How To Judge the Judges” pada mukasurat 21 telah merujuk kepada Lord Devlin di dalam bukunya, The Judge, mukasurat 3 (mukasurat 21 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) seperti berikut:

 

“What is the function of the judge? Professor Jaffe has a phrase for it – “the disinterested application of known law” (Professor Jaffe in his book English and American Judges as Lawmakers, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1969, p 13}… It is at any rate what 90% or more of English judges-and I dare say also of all judges of all nationalities – are engaged in for 90% of their working lives. The social service which the judge.renders to the community is the removal of a sense of injustice. To perform this service the essential quality which he needs is impartiality and next after that the appearance of impartiality. I put impartiality before the appearance of it simply because without the reality the appearance would not endure. In truth, within the context of service to the community the appearance is the more important of the two. The judge who gives the right judgment while appearing not to do so may be thrice blessed in heaven, but on earth he is no use at all”.

 

157.    Selanjutnya, NH Chan J di dalam bukunya “How To Judge the Judges” pada mukasurat 22 telah merujuk kepada Pannick di dalam bukunya “Judges”, mukasurat  41 (mukasurat 22 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) seperti berikut:

Occasionally a litigant objects to the involvement of a particular judge on the ground that previous judgments cause the litigant to doubt whether the judge would decide the case impartially. In 1978 Lord Denning acceded to such an application: Ex parte Church of Scientology of California, The Times, February 21,1978. He said that “if the Church of Scientology felt that its case would be a little disturbed by his sitting on it, that was the last thing he would wish to do and he would see that it came before a court in which his Lordship was not sitting”. In 1984 (The Times, November 16,1984) Lord Chief Justice Lane stood down from the court of three judges assigned to hear a case concerning the use of road blocks by the police to prevent striking miners reaching picket lines. Counsel for the miners had argued that Lord Lane would be influenced by comments he had made, adverse to the miners’ legal claim to conduct such activities, in a previous case. Lord Lane said that he could see no reason why he should not hear the case, but that he was willing to step down. The case was heard and decided, in favour of the police, by the other two judges: Moss v Mclachlnn [1985] IRLR 76.

 

Lord Denning and Lord Lane were over-generous in their response to these applications. Judges are there to decide cases, not to excuse themselves whenever a litigant doubts, without cause, the judicial qualities of those assigned to sit in judgment. Litigants should not be encouraged to treat judges like members of a jury whom they can challenge off the case, with or without cause.”

158.    Perayu turut berhujah bahawa di bawah Artikel 126 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, kuasa berkaitan penghinaan Mahkamah (‘contempt of court’) terletak kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan, Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Tinggi.  Oleh yang demikian terdapat percanggahan di antara peruntukkan undang-undang di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Akta Mahkamah Rendah.

Artikel 126 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

 

“126.  Power to punish for contempt

The Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court shall have power to punish any contempt of itself.”

159.    Perayu ingin bersandarkan kepada kes Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118 (mukasurat 26 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Lord Justice Buckley pada mukasurat 141 menyatakan seperti berikut:

“… It is perhaps arguable that a judge, though acting within his powers, might be shown to have acted so perversely or so irrationally that what he did should not be treated as a judicial act at all. In such a case the remedy for his removal from office would be available.”

160.    Rayuan Perayu agar Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur menarik diri daripada mendengar Kes Tangkap Tersebut telah ditolak tanpa mengambilkira merit yang melibatkan bantahan Perayu terhadap Afidavit Jawapan yang diikrarkan oleh deponen, seorang Pembantu Undang-Undang yang lebih rendah grednya yang bukan Timbalan Pendakwaraya iaitu Nurul Ashiqin dan Siti Hajar yang mengendalikan perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut.

161.    Oleh yang demikian Perayu berhujah bahawa Afidavit Jawapan Tersebut tidak boleh digunapakai untuk pendengaran permohonan agar Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur menarik diri daripada mendengar perbicaraan Kes Tangkap No: 2-83-7119-2009 kerana  deponen tiada pengetahuan tentang prosiding perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut.

162.    Pihak Perayu ingin merujuk kepada kes Mahkamah Agung (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) Wee Choo Keong v MBf Holdings Berhad & Anor And Another Appeal [1995] 3 MLJ 549 (mukasurat 26 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Chong Siew Fai CJ (Sabah dan Sarawak) memutuskan bahawa afidavit tidak boleh digunakan apabila tidak dapat membuktikan fakta-fakta yang diikrarkan di dalam afidavit tersebut:

 

“It is incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that Wee at the material time on 10 February 1993 at about 4.25pm was in his office, but also that the alleged acts and/or omissions by Ivan Wong were done on the instructions of Wee and were sufficient to constitute evasion of service of the court order on the part of Wee. After careful deliberation of submissions by counsel for both sides and detailed examination and analysis of all relevant evidence adduced in the form of affidavits and exhibits, I was of the view that the evidence, taken in totality, was insufficient to prove or fell short of proving to the criminal standard, ie beyond reasonable doubt the charge of contempt by evasion of service of the court order dated 9 February 1993 as alleged.”

163.    Pihak Perayu juga turut merujuk kepada kes Zamrud Properties Sdn Bhd v Pang Mooi Gaid & Anor [1999] 5 MLJ 180 (mukasurat 12 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) Faiza Thamby Chik J telah memutuskan bahawa afidavit yang diikrarkan oleh deponen yang tiada pengetahuan tentang fakta-fakta yang dinyatakan di dalam afidavit berkenaan maka afidavit berkenaan tidak boleh digunapakai:

 

The deponent in encl 2 has clearly stated that he was informed by his counsel of the happenings at the full trial in the sessions court. The deponent clearly has no personal knowledge of the happenings or the course of the trial at the sessions court and therefore is unable on his own to prove the facts as alleged in his affidavit. This is clearly hearsay evidence.”

164.    Merit rayuan yang lain adalah bahawa pertuduhan yang dihadapkan terhadap Perayu mengenai cakera keras (‘hard disk’) memang merupakan kes pertama seumpamanya di Malaysia maka adalah lebih wajar Majistret yang lebih kanan dan berpengalaman mendengar kes ini kerana melibatkan isu-isu teknikal dan undang-undang yang lebih kompleks dan mencabar.

165.    Setakat ini kes yang telah diputuskan di mahkamah Negara-negara Komanwel yang melibatkan pertuduhan mengenai cakera keras (‘hard disk’) adalah kes R v. Trapp (supra) di mana pakar telah menunjukkan kepada mahkamah penggunaan ‘hash function’ atau ‘hash algorithm’ dan ‘hash value’ merupakan proses yang sangat kritikal dan penting di samping pengimejan forensik cakera keras dilakukan sebelumnya. Di dalam kes tersebut, pakar forensik komputer telah menggunakan SHA-1 sebagai ‘hash function’, ‘hash value’ pengiraan ‘hash value’ ditunjukkan dan dibandingkan dengan salinan imej forensik bagi cakera keras semasa perbicaraan.

166.    Keputusan telah diberikan pada 4.12.2010 di mana terdapat kes prima facie walaupun tiada keterangan dan bukti yang ‘credible’ daripada setiap saksi-saksi pendakwaan.

167.    Perayu ingin menarik perhatian Mahkamah yang Mulia ini bahawa Perayu telah memohon Alasan Penghakiman bahawa terdapat satu kes prima facie terhadap Perayu agar Perayu dapat menyediakan kes pembelaan dan juga memanggil saksi-saksi bagi pembelaan. Walaubagaimanapun sehingga ke hari ini Alasan Penghakiman tersebut tidak diperolehi.

168.    Pada 24.12.2010 apabila kes ditetapkan untuk sambung bicara bagi kes Pembelaan dan sepina kepada saksi turut dicatitkan tarikh yang sama, waran tangkap dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah kerana dikatakan tarikh sambung bicara sebenarnya pada 23.12.2010.

169.    Pada 6.1.2011 tarikh yang ditetapkan untuk Sebutan waran tangkap, waran tangkap telah dibatalkan dan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 telah menolak permohonan pihak Pembelaan untuk memanggil 2 orang saksi pembelaan dan menetapkan kes untuk hujahan bertulis pada 18.1.2011.

170.    Bagi membalas alasan ini Perayu dengan sesungguhnya memohon agar Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dapat melihat sendiri rakaman video sepanjang perbicaraan dari 7.6.2010 hingga 6.11.2011 supaya Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dapat menilai sendiri samada Perayu telah dibenarkan mengemukakan soalan-soalan dengan sepenuhnya semasa pemeriksaan balas.

171.    Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 seharusnya membuat arahan yang jelas.

172.    Pada 29.7.2010 sehingga 19.10.2010 Perayu tidak dapat mengutarakan soalan-soalan dengan sepenuhnya terhadap semua saksi-saksi pendakwaan semasa pemeriksaan balas kerana dihalang oleh Mahkamah.

173.    Tiada direkodkan di dalam Nota Keterangan bagi sambung perbicaraan pada 29.7.2010 mengenai permohonan penangguhan untuk melantik peguambela.

174.    Perintah Waran Tangkap yang dibuat pada 6.9.2010 oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur ketika Perayu masih menjalani hukuman menghina Mahkamah dan berada di Penjara Kajang tanpa sebarang “Order To Produce’ dikeluarkan oleh mahkamah.

175.    Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang yang meneruskan prosiding perbicaraan dengan prosiding ‘hostile witness’ walaupun perintah ‘contempt of court’ telah dibuat terhadap Saksi Pendakwaan Ke-enam (SP6) pada hari yang sama, iaitu pada 19.10.2010 bagi Kes Tangkap Tersebut.

176.    Pihak Perayu turut berhujah bahawa Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila gagal mengambilkira bahawa saksi pendakwaan ke-enam (SP6) telah ditahan selama lebihkurang 2 jam di lokap Mahkamah berikutan perintah pengkomitan yang dibuat oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur pada 19.10.2010 walaupun tanpa prosedur Penghinaan Mahkamah (‘contempt of court’) yang sempurna dan mengikut peruntukan undang-undang.

177.    SP6 yang telah disekat dan bercanggah dengan peruntukan Artikel 8 dan Artikel 9 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Artikel 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

8.         Equality

(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law.”

Artikel 9 Perlembagaan Persekutuan pula memperuntukkan undang-undang berkenaan kebebasan untuk bergerak seperti berikut:

 

9.         Prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement

“(1) No citizen shall be banished or excluded from the Federation.

 

(2) Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof.”

 

178.    Pihak Perayu berhujah lanjut bahawa penahanan saksi pendakwaan ke-enam (SP6) pada 19.10.2010 adalah satu penahanan salah dan tidak mengikut prosedur undang-undang.

179.    Selain daripada itu, saksi pendakwaan ke-enam (SP6) tidak diberi peluang untuk mendapatkan khidmat seorang peguambela dan menyediakan pembelaan  apabila perintah menghina Mahkamah dibuat oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret 2, Kuala Lumpur pada 19.10.2010 yang bertentangan dengan peruntukan Artikel 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

180.    Bagi menyokong alasan ini pihak Perayu bersandarkan kepada kes Mahkamah Persekutuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) di dalam kes Zainur Zakaria v. Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 MLJ 604 (di mukasurat 617 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan membuat keputusan seperti berikut:

“(1) …The charge of contempt of court against the appellant had not been

     proved beyond reasonable doubt. The phrase ‘an oppurtunity answering the charge’ must necessarily include that a reasonable oppurtunity be given to the alleged contemnor to prepare his case. That the conduct of the hearing must be fair is a reflection of the deeper principle that the alleged contemnor is entitled to present his case fully. The learned High Court judge should have allowed the appellant the adjournment he requested so that he could prepare his defence fully, fairly and effectively. By refusing to grant the adjournment, the appellant had been deprived of the oppurtunity of answering the chage against him; Jaginder Singh & Ors v Attorney General [1983] 1 MLJ 71 followed.

  

181.    Selain daripada itu pihak Perayu turut bersandarkan kepada satu lagi kes Mahkamah Persekutuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) di dalam kes Karam Singh v. Public Prosecutor [1975] 1 MLJ 229 di mana Azlan Shah FJ (di mukasurat 1 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) menyatakan seperti berikut:

“(1) A magistrate’s summary power to proceed of his own motion must never be invoked unless the ends of justice required such drastic means. The magistrate should not be both the prosecutor and the judge.”

182.    Pihak Perayu turut bergantung kepada satu kes Mahkamah Persekutuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) di dalam kes Jaginder Singh & Ors v. Attorney-General [1983] 1 MLJ 71 (di mukasurat 5 Ikatan Otoriti Pihak Perayu) di mana Raja Azlan Shah AG LP, Abdul Hamid FJ dan AbdoolCader J membenarkan rayuan perayu di dalam kes tersebut dan memutuskan seperti berikut:

What also vitiated the committal for contempt of court in this case was the learned judge’s failure to make plain to the appellants the specific nature of the charges and the opportunity to give them a fair hearing.”

183.    Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur telah membuat perintah Penghinaan Mahkamah terhadap saksi pendakwaan ke-enam (SP6) apabila SP6 menggunapakai keistimewaan atau ‘privilege’ di bawah Seksyen 122 Akta Keterangan 1950 untuk kesemua Ekshibit  “P-20” hingga “P-33” bagi Kes Tangkap Tersebut.

184.    Pihak Perayu berhujah bahawa perintah penghinaan Mahkamah yang dibuat oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur tidak boleh diubah mengikut peruntukkan Seksyen 278 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah seperti berikut:

278. Penghakiman tidak boleh diubah

            Mahkamah yang lain daripada Mahkamah Tinggi, apabila telah merekodkan penghakimannya tidak boleh mengubah atau mengkaji semula di atas perkara itu:

 

            Dengan syarat bahawa kesilapan hanya berlaku kerana tersalah tulis di mana boleh diperbetulkan pada bila-bila masa juga pun, dan kesilapan yang lain hendaklah diperbetulkan pada bila-bila masa sebelum Mahkamah menamatkan perbicaraan untuk hari itu.”

 

185.    Perayu ingin mengemukakan satu kes Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam kes  Azizan bin Saad v Public Prosecutor [2000] 6 MLJ 134 (mukasurat 138 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) di mana Nik Hashim J (pada masa itu) memutuskan bahawa apabila seorang Hakim Sesyen telah menambah berkenaan tempoh bermulanya hukuman yang dijatuhkan terhadap tertuduh yang tiada dicatatkan di dalam Nota Keterangan dan tidak  diumumkan di dalam Mahkamah terbuka tetapi terdapat di dalam Waran Komitmen maka Hakim Sesyen tersebut telah mengubah perintahnya yang berlawanan dengan Kanun Prosedur Jenayah :

“…the learned judge became functus officio after the sentence was passed and could not add, alter the judgment or make the order on the Warrant of Commitment(WC) directing the accused serve the present term of imprisonment consecutive to the one he had been previously sentenced. Though the Warrant of Commitment was signed by the judge, the direction on the WC was not part of her judgment when she passed the sentence in court; (4) the failure of the judge to state the direction in the judgment notes amounts to ommission; it is not mere irregularity but an ommission which occassions a failure of justice to the detriment of the accused and is not curable under s 422 of the CPC.”

   

186.    Sebagai perbandingan dengan kes di hadapan Mahkamah yang Mulia pada hari ini, tiada Nota Keterangan pada 19.10.2010 apabila Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur membuat perintah penghinaan Mahkamah dan ini bukan satu luar aturan yang boleh dibaiki di bawah Seksyen 422 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah tetapi satu ketidakadilan yang memrejudiskan Perayu.

187.    Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur telah tidak menggunakan budi bicara beliau dengan baik di dalam memutuskan untuk tidak meneruskan dengar prosiding menghina Mahkamah tersebut dan perkara-perkara berikut tidak disempurnakan:

a)         Tiada Nota Keterangan berkenaan pada mulanya perintah menghina

Mahkamah dan kemudian prosiding ‘hostile witness’ pada 19.10.2010;

b)         Rakaman video ketika perintah menghina Mahkamah dibuat pada 19.10.2010 telah dipadam; dan

c)         Tiada sebarang Alasan Penghakiman disediakan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur bagi menunjukkan alasan-alasan beliau di dalam menggunakan budi bicara yang dikatakan digunakan dengan baik.

188.    Tambahan lagi Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur  telah tidak mematuhi peruntukkan undang-undang berkaitan prosiding kes jenayah sebagaimana yang termaktub di bawah Seksyen-seksyen 265, 266, 267, 268 dan 433 Kanun Prosedur Jenayah (Akta 593).

189.    Di dalam Nota Keterangan pada 17.8.2010 dan 19.10.2010 tiada catatan tentang permohonan pihak pendakwaan untuk prosiding ‘hostile witness’ terhadap SP6 dan tiada prosiding ‘hostile witness’ itu sendiri dijalankan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur.

190.    Menurut perenggan 7 Alasan Penghakiman Tersebut, pernyataan di bawah Seksyen 112 SP6 telah dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan tetapi tiada keternagan di dalam Nota Keterangan samada ianya ditanda sebagai ekshibit.

191.    Oleh yang demikian timbul persoalan bagaimana SP6 boleh diputuskan oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur sebagai ‘hostile witness’ berdasarkan tiga (3) kes yang dirujuk oleh Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur sedangkan tiada sebarang keterangan di dalam Nota Keterangan yang sudah tentu menimbulkan keraguan samada prosiding ‘hostile witness’ dijalankan mengikut lunas undang-undang. Ini menunjukkan bahawa keputusan Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur tidak konsisten dengan Nota Keterangan sepanjang prosiding perbicaraan yang dijalankan oleh beliau.

192.    Prosedur ‘hostile witness’ yang dijalankan ke atas SP6 tidak mengikut prosedur undang-undang di mana Salleh Abas FJ di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) Krishnan v. PP [1981] 2 MLJ 121, 123 (mukasurat 1 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) telah mengesahkan prosedur ‘hostile witness’ di dalam kes Muthusamy v. lawan Public Prosecutor [1948] 1 MLJ 57 (mukasurat 8 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) seperti berikut:

“The proper way to apply the sections is this. On the request of either side, the Court reads the former statement. If there is no serious discrepancy the Court so rules and no time is wasted. The first necessity is to read it with the confident expectation that it will be different from the evidence but looking judicially to see whether the difference really is so serious as to suggest that the witness is unreliable.

Differences may be divided into four classes:–
(a)   Minor differences, not amounting to discrepancies;
(b)   Apparent discrepancies;
(c)   Serious discrepancies;
(d)   Material contradictions.

Minor differences are attributable mainly to differences in interpretation and the way in which the statement was taken and sometimes to differences in recollection. A perfectly truthful witness may mention a detail on one occasion and not remember it on another. A mere omission is hardly ever a discrepancy. The police statement is usually much briefer than the evidence. Both the statement and the evidence are usually narratives reduced from question and answer. The witness is not responsible for the actual expressions used in either, and all the less so where he does not speak English.

If the police statement gives an outline of substantially the same story there being no apparently irreconcilable conflict between the two on any point material to the issue, the Magistrate should say at once  [*59]  “The difference is not such as to affect his credit” and hand the statement back.

If, however, the difference is so material as probably to amount to a discrepancy affecting the credit of the witness, the Court may permit the witness to be asked whether he made the alleged statement. If he denies having made it, then either the matter must be dropped or the document must be formally proved, by calling the writer or, if he is not available, by proving in some other way that the witness did make the statement.

If the witness admits making the former statement, or is proved to have made it, then the two conflicting versions must be carefully explained to him, preferably by the Court, and he must have a fair and full opportunity to explain the difference. If he can, then his credit is saved, though there may still be doubt as to the accuracy of his memory. This procedure is cumbersome and slow and therefore should not be used unless the apparent discrepancy is material to the issue.

In this trial the witness Usop said:–
“All the present witnesses were there but I did not notice Mansoor …
there were many people there”.

In his investigation statement he had said:–
“I saw A,B,C. and one Mansoor there”.

The general tenor of his statement accorded with his evidence. Now A, B and C, and also Mansoor, had all given evidence and it was not disputed that Mansoor had in fact been present at the incident. Clearly, therefore, this difference was at the most only a difference in recollection as to one of a number of persons and no further explanation was necessary. The police prosecutor ought not to have referred to it. When he did, the Magistrate should not have allowed him to cross-examine on it. Counsel for the defence, of course, further cross-examined on it and he elicited that Mansoor had been mentioned in answer to a leading question. This was a reasonable explanation. But the point is that the Court elaborately investigated a point of no significance. If Mansoor had been one of the accused persons, the case would have been different because then the question whether or not Mansoor was present would have been in issue.

193.    Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2, Kuala Lumpur juga tidak membacakan pernyataan yang dikatakan bercanggah kepada SP6 yang mengunapakai ‘privilege’ di bawah Seksyen 122 Akta Keterangan 1950 dan SP6 tidak diberi peluang memberi penjelasan mengenai pernyataan yang dikatakan ada percanggahan itu.

194.    Pihak Perayu juga ingin menarik perhatian Mahkamah yang Mulia ini bahawa terdapat tokok-tambah di dalam keterangan SP6 semasa pemeriksaan utama pada 17.8.2010. Nota Keterangan bagi SP6 di akhir kes pembelaan, rakaman CRT dan Nota Keterangan mukasurat 88 Rekod Rayuan adalah berbeza :

Mahkamah : Bacakan No. Siri pada hard disk itu untuk tujuan perbandingan dengan yang ada dalam senarai geledah.

 

No. Siri adalah SNR 32559XK.

 

Pada para 2 borang senarai geledah tempat geledah adalah ************** ******** **********  ********, KL.

 

Ada satu thumbdrive, ada 12 VCD and DVD.

 

(Saksi dirujuk beberapa keping gambar yang dijumpai dalam hard disc).

(Saksi diminta baca alamat pada borang geledah-dibaca oleh saksi).”

195.    Pihak Perayu juga ingin menarik perhatian Mahkamah yang Mulia ini bahawa Majistret, Mahkamah Majistret Jenayah 2 tidak merekodkan Timbalan Pendakwaraya yang hadir pada hari hukuman dan sabitan pada 25.2.2011 di mana Timbalan Pendakwaraya yang hadir bukan Nurul Ashiqin sebagaimana direkodkan di mukasurat 114 Rekod Rayuan.

196.    Mahkamah Majistret sewajarnya mengendalikan penilaian maksimum ke atas keterangan semua saksi dan kegagalan untuk mengendalikan penilaian maksimum ke atas keterangan saksi-saksi mengakibatkan salah laksana keadilan.

Di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan (yang mengikat Mahkamah ini) Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ 301, (mukasurat 16 Ikatan Otoriti Perayu) Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seperti berikut:

“[27] It is plain from what we have said when discussing the evidence that a reasonable tribunal properly directing itself on the applicable law and judicially appreciating the evidence would have acquitted the appellant at the close of prosecution case. The failure of the learned judge to undertake a maximum or positive evaluation of the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW8 has in the present case resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.” 

      

197.    Adalah menjadi hujahan pihak Perayu bahawa ekshibit-ekshibit “P2(b)” hingga “P2(n)” adalah tidak berkaitan dengan pendakwaan Kes Tangkap tersebut dan dikategorikan sebagai material yang tidak digunakan (dengan izin, “unused materials”) dan dipohon agar dilepaskan mengikut peruntukan Seksyen 40(8) Akta Penapisan Filem 2002.

198.    Pihak Perayu dengan rendah diri memohon agar ekshibit-ekshibit “P2(a) hingga “P2(n)” diperintahkan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini agar dikembalikan kepada pihak Perayu sekiranya sabitan diakas dan Perayu dilepaskan berasaskan peruntukan Seksyen 406A (2) Kanun Prosedur Jenayah.

199.    Kesimpulannya berdasarkan hujahan-hujahan yang dikemukakan di atas, Perayu memohon agar rayuan ini dibenarkan kerana pihak Perayu telah berjaya menunjukkan terdapat kecacatan yang material dan amat memudaratkan serta memprejudiskan Perayu yang dihadapkan dengan pertuduhan Kes Tangkap Tersebut. Oleh itu Perayu memohon rayuan ini dibenarkan dan hukuman dan sabitan terhadap Perayu bagi Kes Tangkap Tersebut dibatalkan (dengan izin ‘the conviction is quashed’) kerana setiap elemen pertuduhan tidak dibuktikan melampaui keraguan yang munasabah dan terdapat ‘miscarriage of justice’ bagi prosiding perbicaraan Kes Tangkap Tersebut.

……………………………..

Mohamad Izaham bin Mohamed Yatim

Perayu


[i]  Walker & Walker The Law of Evidence in Scotland (2000) para 5.3.2.

[ii] Moorov (Samuel) v HM Advocate 1930 JC 68

************************************************************************

JURISDICTION, Practice. A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. 6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239. The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction.
2. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null. An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated. 1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2.
3. Jurisdiction is original, when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is called original jurisdiction; (q.v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the judgment of another court. Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of a criminal nature; or criminal, where the court is to punish crimes. Some courts and magistrates have both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is also concurrent, exclusive, or assistant. Concurrent jurisdiction is that which may be entertained by several courts. It is a rule that in cases of concurrent jurisdictions, that which is first seized of the case shall try it to the exclusion of the other. Exclusive jurisdiction is that which has alone the power to try or determine the Suit, action, or matter in dispute. assistant jurisdiction is that which is afforded by a court of chancery, in aid of a court of law; as, for example, by a bill of discovery, by the examination of witnesses de bene esse, or out of the jurisdiction of the court; by the perpetuation of the testimony of witnesses, and the like.
4. It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 1 N. & M. 192; 3 M’Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478. But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may wave the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M’Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213.
5. Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear upon the record. 5 Cranch, 172 Pet. C. C. R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86; 11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; 3 Verm. 114; 10 Conn. 514; 4 John. 292; 3 Yerg. 355; Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267. But the legislature may, by a general or special law, provide otherwise. Pet. C. C. R. 36. Vide 1 Salk. 414; Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C. D; Id. Prerogative, E 6; Merlin, Rep. h.t.; Ayl. Pat. 317, and the art. Competency. As to the force of municipal law beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the state, see Wheat. Intern. Law, part a, c. 2, Sec. 7, et seq.; Story, Confl. of Laws, c. 2; Huberus, lib. 1, t. 3; 13 Mass. R. 4 Pard. Dr. Com. part. 6, t. 7, c. 2, Sec. 1; and the articles Conflict of Laws; Courts of the United States. See generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisdiction

Categories: Abuse of Process of Court, Art of Counter-CyberForensics, Blog, Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem Codes, Breach of Expert Duties, Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Prosecution's Duties, Brute-Force Attack, Case Law Studies, Chain of Custody, Chain of Evidence, Code Breakers, Conspiracy Theory, Control, Credibility of Expert Witness, Criminal & Civil Liability of Expert Witness, Criminal Behavioral Studies, Criminal Justice, Criminal Procedures Code (Act 593) - Malayan Law, Criminology, Cryptanalysis, Cryptography, Custody, Cyber Forensics & Investigations, Damages, Data Analyses, Definition of Possession in Law, Domain Names, E-mail, Electronic Evidence, Error-Correcting Codes, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Evidence Not Marked As Exhibit, Expert At Crime Scene, Expert Evidence, Expert Witness, Federal Constitutions, First Information Report (FIR), Forensics Standards, Freedom and Privacy, Freedom of Thought, Fundamental Human Rights, Gaussian and Non-Gaussian, Gazetted Expert Witness, Human Rights, Marriage & Privacy, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Information, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights, Invasion of Privacy, Knowledge, Law of Tort, Limitation of Immunity of Judge in Lower Court, Limitations to The Immunity Rule, Malicious Prosecution, Manner in which lack of competency may rise, Marriage Rights, Mathematical Theory of Nothing, MD5, Measures of Central Tendency, Measures of Determinism, Measures of Dispersion, Measures of Stochasticity, Natural Justice, Networking and Internet, Null Set Theory, Number Theory, One-Way Hash Functions, Penal Codes, Power and Privacy, Private Property, Private Spaces, Prosecution, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Reed-Solomon Codes, Retrospective of Privacy, S 120 Parties to Civil Suits and Wives and Husbands, S1 Evidence Act 1950, S10 Evidence Act 1950, S11 Evidence Act 1950, S12 Evidence Act 1950, S122 Evidence Act (Communication During Marriage), S13 Evidence Act 1950, S14 Evidence Act 1950, S15 Evidence Act 1950, S16 Evidence Act 1950, S17 Evidence Act 1950, S2 Evidence Act 1950, S3 Evidence Act 1950, S4 Evidence Act 1950, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise, S45 Evidence Act 1950, S5 Evidence Act 1950, S56 Fact Judicially Noticeable Need To Be Proved, S57 Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice, S6 Evidence Act 1950, S65 Evidence Act 1950, S65(1)(c) Evidence Act 1950, S7 Evidence Act 1950, S8 Evidence Act 1950, S9 Evidence Act 1950, S93 Exclusion of Evidence To Explain or Amend Ambigious Document, Scientific Evidence and Law, Secret of The Bodies, Secure Communications, SHA-1, Territories of Selfness, The Algorithms, The Daubert Test, The Dyas Test, The Frye Test, The Jacobetz Refinement, The Kelly-Frye Test, The Kumho Gloss, The Non-linear Algorithms, The Post-Daubert Decisions, The Source Codes, The Theory of Pure Democracy, The Williams Departure, Trial Within Trial, True Definition of Natural Justice, Vicarious Liability, Websites, Without Search Warrant

Dithiothreitol, Saifool and Sodomy 2.0: We can see (obviously) that the Empirical Derivations of the facts that the evidence has been fabricated. Without the implementation of DEP – Differential Extraction Process and The Usage of a small-molecule redox reagent known as Cleland’s reagent, The DNA that “claimed” to be extracted from the sperm is false and it has been fabricated from other part of human being – Daubert Standard

Differential extraction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Differential extraction refers to the process by which the DNA from two different types of cells can be extracted without mixing their contents. The most common application of this method is the extraction of DNA from vaginal epithelial cells and sperm cells from sexual assault cases in order to determine the DNA profiles of the victim and the perpetrator. Its success is based on the fact that sperm cells have protein disulfide bonds in their outer membrane which makes them more resilient to extraction than epithelial cells.

After determining that sperm cells are present (typically through staining and light microscopy) in a vaginal/rectal sample, the subject’s epithelial cells are lysed by a standard DNA extraction method, like a phenol/chloroform extraction and their DNA extracted through normal means. The epithelial DNA in solution is removed and saved, while the sperm cells are still intact. Differential extraction uses a chemical called dithiothreitol (DTT) to disrupt the sulfur bonds in the coating of the sperm cell in order to extract its DNA. Once the sperm’s outer membrane has been breached, it is prone to standard DNA extraction methods. This creates two different DNA fractions from one sample, hopefully that of the victim and that of the perpetrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_extraction

******************************************************************************************

Dithiothreitol (DTT) is the common name for a small-molecule redox reagent known as Cleland’s reagent. DTT’s formula is C4H10O2S2 and the molecular structure of its reduced form is shown at the right; its oxidized form is a disulfide-bonded 6-membered ring (shown below). Its name derives from the four-carbon sugar, threose. DTT has an epimeric (‘sister’) compound, dithioerythritol (DTE).

Contents

[hide]

  • 1 Reducing agent
  • 2 Applications
  • 3 Properties
  • 4 References

[edit] Reducing agent

DTT is an unusually strong reducing agent, owing to its high conformational propensity to form a six-membered ring with an internal disulfide bond. It has a redox potential of -0.33 V at pH 7. The reduction of a typical disulfide bond proceeds by two sequential thiol-disulfide exchange reactions and is illustrated below. The intermediate mixed-disulfide state is unstable (i.e., poorly populated) because the second thiol of DTT has a high propensity to close the ring, forming oxidized DTT and leaving behind a reduced disulfide bond. The reducing power of DTT is limited to pH values above ~7, since only the negatively charged thiolate form -S is reactive (the protonated thiol form -SH is not); the pKa of the thiol groups is 9.2 and 10.1.

Reduction of a typical disulfide bond by DTT via two sequential thiol-disulfide exchange reactions.

[edit] Applications

A common use of DTT is as a reducing or “deprotecting” agent for thiolated DNA. The terminal sulfur atoms of thiolated DNA have a tendency to form dimers in solution, especially in the presence of oxygen. Dimerization greatly lowers the efficiency of subsequent coupling reactions such as DNA immobilization on gold in biosensors. Typically DTT is mixed with a DNA solution and allowed to react, and then is removed by filtration (for the solid catalyst) or by chromatography (for the liquid form). The DTT removal procedure is often called “desalting.”

DTT is frequently used to reduce the disulfide bonds of proteins and, more generally, to prevent intramolecular and intermolecular disulfide bonds from forming between cysteine residues of proteins. However, even DTT cannot reduce buried (solvent-inaccessible) disulfide bonds, so reduction of disulfide bonds is sometimes carried out under denaturing conditions (e.g., at high temperatures, or in the presence of a strong denaturant such as 6 M guanidinium hydrochloride, 8 M urea, or 1% sodium dodecylsulfate). Conversely, the solvent exposure of different disulfide bonds can be assayed by their rate of reduction in the presence of DTT.

DTT can also be used as an oxidizing agent. Its principal advantage is that effectively no mixed-disulfide species are populated, in contrast to other agents such as glutathione. In very rare cases, a DTT adduct may be formed, i.e., the two sulfur atoms of DTT may form disulfide bonds to different sulfur atoms; in such cases, DTT cannot cyclize since it has no remaining free thiols.

[edit] Properties

Due to air oxidation, DTT is a relatively unstable compound whose useful life can be extended by refrigeration and handling in an inert atmosphere. Since protonated sulfurs have lowered nucleophilicities, DTT becomes less potent as the pH lowers. Tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine HCl (TCEP hydrochloride) is an alternative which is more stable and works even at low pH.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Merck Index, 11th Edition, 3382.
  • Cleland, W.W. (April 1964). “Dithiothreitol, A New Protective Reagent for SH Groups”. Biochemistry 3: 480–2. doi:10.1021/bi00892a002. PMID 14192894.
  • Ruegg, UT; Rudinger, J. (1977). “Cleavage of disulfide bonds in proteins”. Methods Enzymol 47: 111.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithiothreitol

******************************************************************************************

How is it that three cotton swabs retrieved from the rectum of sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan showed no sign of degradation when tested some 100 hours later?

This is the issue that is puzzling Australian DNA expert Dr Brian McDonald.

dr brian mcdonald sodomy llDescribing the findings from the three swabs marked B7, B8 and B9 from the high and low rectal areas of the complainant as “pristine”, McDonald (right) told the Sodomy II trial of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim that this was “inconsistent with the history”.

“This is because there is no sign of degradation and the samples are pristine,” he said about the three samples taken from Saiful’s rectum 56 hours after the alleged sodomy took place between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

Saiful was examined by four doctors at Hospital Kuala Lumpur between 9pm on June 28 and midnight on June 29, 2008.

Investigating officer Supt Jude Blacious Pereira had earlier testified that the samples were kept in a drawer in his air-conditioned office and handed over to chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong at around 7pm on June 30, 2008.

Yesterday, McDonald, 60, told the Kuala Lumpur High Court that the samples should ideally be kept in a freezer at minus 20 degrees Celsius.

Questioned on the three samples by defence counsel Ram Karpal Singh, McDonald said the ‘Male Y’ DNA was prevalent in the low rectal swabs.

However, the witness noted, Saiful’s DNA was prevalent in the high rectal swab.

“Hence, I cannot discount the possibility that Saiful’s semen or sperm could have been up in the high rectal area, based on the tests,” McDonald said.

“Furthermore,” he added, “the three samples from the swab are pristine, although they should have degraded under the circumstances.”

Another Australian expert witness, Dr David Wells, had testified earlier that he would not take samples from a sexual assault victim 36 hours after the attack.

McDonald had also testified that such a sample would be deeply degraded after 56 hours.

Saiful’s semen sperm in anus?

McDonald also explained that chemists Dr Seah Lay Hong was guilty of “guessing” in treating Saiful’s sample, as there was no indication in her report where the sample originates and that he did not use the same numbering system employed by the doctors.

NONE“We have to assume where the swab came from as this is not reflected in Seah’s (right) report,” he said, adding Seah should verify where it came from in sodomy cases.

“It could come from a cigarette butt. Seah did not provide the information in the report. She has not reported anything on the sample whether it came somewhere or another.”

McDonald said Seah did not properly do the differential extraction process (DEP) test from the samples taken to resolve the issue of sperm and non-sperm cells.

This, he said, has to be done again and again until what is left are sperm and not other contaminants.

He said this has resulted in findings of Saiful’s DNA in the rectum.

“That is the case of the complainant’s semen is in his rectum,” he said, adding one cannot assume there is Saiful’s sperm is in his own rectum initially but this had to be assumed following the results of the test.

“I would say Seah’s evidence is a guess.”

Ram: Why is that?

McDonald: Because she did not slide on the receptacle and put it under a microscope to verify. That is only way to determine and if there is further, the process has to be repeated again to remove the contaminants.

Ram: Is it possible that there is Saiful’s sperm in his anus.

McDonald: If she had done it properly, we can cut out on such a possibility. The sample taken cannot be relied on because (it contain Saiful’s DNA).

Ram: Can we conclusively say that Saiful’s sperm is not in his anus?

McDonald: No, she is guessing that there are other cells. She did not do the DEP test properly. The Male Y (allegedly Anwar’s DNA) is predominant in B7 the low rectal swab. However, on the B8 (high rectal), Saiful’s DNA was predominant.We cannot discount Saiful’s sperm was up in his own anus, based on the result.

Anwar Ibrahim is charged with sodomising Saiful at the Desa Damansara condominium between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

The trial continues from Sept 19 to 23 with McDonald’s testimony.

http://anwaribrahimblog.com/2011/08/26/pristine-condition-of-rectal-swabs-puzzles-expert/

*************************************************************************************************

Bodoh Sombong: Lawak la Depa Ni

Nak kata bangang, tapi berlagak pandai… Bodoh sombong sesuai juga untuk depa ni…

 

Rujuk S173 CPC (Kanun Prosedur Jenayah)

**********************************************************************************************

This can only be done at the close of DC’s case.

When Court calls the accused to enter his defence, 3 options for the Accused given by the Court s173 (h) (a):

1) to give sworn evidence in witness box (effect: liable to be cross-examined)

2) to give unsworn statement from dock (effect: no right to cross-examine because it does not constitute evidence (Ip Ying Wah, Wong Heng Fatt)

3) to remain silent (effect : no right to cross-examine because it does not constitute evidence)

~refer section 173(ha) CPC


Decision whether to convict or acquit s173 (m)

Suffian J in Mat v PP outlined the steps for magistrates to observe:

When the court convicts, accused can plea in mitigation

~refer S173A CPC

If conviction made under s173A, there will be no recording of conviction.

Sentencing s173 (m) & s173 (b)

S173 (m) stated that the court ‘shall pass sentence according to law’. Azmi J in PP v Jafa Daud examined this phrase:

Main factors to be considered before sentencing are:

1)      if A is main offender

2)      if A has previous records and A admits the records as correct

3)      if offences committed previously were of similar nature as the present offence

4)      whether the sentences imposed previously had any deterrent effect on A

5)      If A is a persistent offender

In PP v Jafa Daud, A had numerous previous convictions. So magistrate should not found the quantity of 0.21g heroin as a mitigating factor. High Court extended imprisonment.

http://mahyuddinbindaud.articlesbase.com/law-articles/short-notes-for-law-students-taking-malaysian-criminal-procedure-1475610.html

**********************************************************************************************

Peguam Negara diminta bertindak ke atas Anwar

KUALA LUMPUR 4 Sept. – Peguam Negara diminta mengambil tindakan ke atas Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang secara terang-terangan memburukkan institusi kehakiman dan hakim perbicaraan di hadapan orang awam.

Naib Presiden Majlis Belia Malaysia (MBM), Datuk Irmohizam Ibrahim (gambar) berkata, kenyataan pembelaan Anwar yang dibuat dari kandang tertuduh dengan tidak bersumpah boleh disifatkan sebagai tuduhan melampau yang merupakan penghinaan terhadap mahkamah.

Katanya, dalam konteks undang-undang, perbuatan Penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat itu sebenarnya seperti menghina mahkamah serta mencabar kewibawaan hakim dalam mengendalikan kes berkenaan.

“Sepatutnya, Peguam Negara harus ambil tindakan tegas dengan mengenakan tuduhan menghina mahkamah di mahkamah lain terhadap tindakan Anwar itu kerana ia boleh mencabar integriti dan kredibiliti sistem perundangan dan kehakiman Malaysia yang telah diamalkan sejak merdeka.

“Janganlah dibiarkan tindakan beliau itu sebagai contoh oleh tertuduh lain di mahkamah nanti. Adakah tindakan Anwar seperti menunjukkan imuniti beliau terhadap kes itu?” katanya ketika dihubungi Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

Beliau mengulas wawancara Mingguan Malaysia bersama peguam terkemuka, Datuk Seri Dr. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah yang menyatakan kenyataan Anwar merupakan penghinaan mahkamah paling serius yang pernah diketahuinya.

Irmohizam yang juga pensyarah di Fakulti Undang-Undang Universiti Teknologi Mara berkata, tindakan melampau itu secara tidak langsung akan menjadi contoh yang tidak baik kepada generasi muda.

“Peguam Negara janganlah bertangguh dalam setiap tindakan agar mahkamah tidak dijadikan pentas untuk meraih sokongan politik.

“Anwar seperti ingin menggunakan mahkamah seperti pentas politik peribadi berbanding untuk mendapatkan kebenaran atas pertuduhan liwatnya. Pada hemat saya, perbuatan beliau itu mencabar prinsip rule of law dan kedaulatan undang-undang,” jelasnya.

Kata Irmohizam lagi, prinsip Rukun Negara mesti dipertahankan dan kedaulatan undang-undang mesti menjadi pegangan setiap warga Malaysia.

Sementara itu, pakar undang-undang, Prof. Salleh Buang berkata, sesiapa sahaja boleh dikenakan tindakan menghina mahkamah walaupun memberi kenyataan di dalam mahkamah yang mendapat absolute privilege asalkan kenyataan itu termasuk dalam kategori mengaibkan mahkamah.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.