Advertisement

Court rejects evidence of defence experts in sodomy trial

Court rejects evidence of defence experts in sodomy trial

The criticism by two foreign defence experts on the evidence of two Malaysian chemists has no evidential value to create doubt in the prosecution's case, the Court of Appeal which set aside Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's acquittal on his sodomy charge said.

In a joint written judgment, the judges said the trial judge had erred in concluding that the evidence of Professor David Lawrence Wells and Dr Brian Leslie McDonald had shown the possibility of the samples taken from the complainant has been compromised.

It said the trial judge had erred when he accepted the evidence from the foreigners and rejected the DNA analysis by government chemists Dr Seah Lay Hong and Nor Aidora Saedon.

"We are of the view that had the trial judge undertaken a critical analysis of the evidence of these two expert witnesses, he would, in all certainty, have not mistaken plausibility for veracity," it said.

The judgment added that the trial judge also erred when he did not consider Wells' and Dr McDonald's credibility and had described the duo as "armchair experts".

"The trial judge turned an indulgent eye upon the evidence of Wells and Dr McDonald when he should have treated them with caution," it said.

Wells, an associate professor in forensic medicine at an Australian university, had testified that beyond 36 hours after a sexual assault, one could hardly succeed in collecting any specimen of value from which DNA could be extracted.

He also told the trial court that it was not possible to extract DNA from sperm cells from the manner the specimens were packed, sealed and stored.

Dr McDonald, a molecular geneticist, had questioned the accreditation of the Chemistry Department and testified that Seah and Aidora were not competent to extract DNA and interpret the DNA profiles.

The Court of Appeal said Seah and Nor Aidora had impeccable credentials and were competent in terms of qualifications and experience.

The defence also contended that the integrity of samples had been compromised by investigating officer, Jude Blascious Pereira and insinuated that the exhibits in a plastic bag had been tampered with.

The evidence on record revealed that the samples from Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan were taken by doctors from Kuala Lumpur Hospital and were immediately placed in sterilised air tight containers which were sealed and labelled.

However, Pereira cut open the plasic bag and took out the containers and put them into individually marked envelopes and kept them in a locked steel cabinet in his office before handing them over to Seah.

Seah had told the court the seals on the containers were intact and she would have recorded it in her report if they had been tampered with or if there was any attempt to tamper them.

"In our considered opinion, the contention that Pereira had tampered with the exhibits in the plastic bag is devoid of any merit," the judgment said.

The judgment said Saiful's evidence that he was sodomised by Anwar was "unusually convincing" although he made a police report two days after the incident.

The judgment said the delay in making the report itself was not fatal for the prosecution's case nor could it create suspicion about the truthfulness of the version given by Saiful.

"As long as there is cogent and acceptable explanation offered for the delay, it loses its significance,' said the joint judgment delivered by Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, Datuk Aziah Ali and Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh.

Saiful made the report on June 28, 2008, more than 48 hours after the incident took place in an upscale condominium in Bukit Damansara. – April 18, 2014.