Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK)’s case transferred to Sessions Court
www.malaysiakini.com
RPK fails to transfer case to Magistrate’s Court
by Hafiz Yatim
February 13, 2009
Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin’s criminal defamation case will be heard at the Sessions Court and not the Magistrate’s Court.
This follows a decision by the High Court today that the transfer of the case from the Magistrate’s Court to the Sessions Court is not “illegal, void and contrary” to section Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code and did not violate Article 8 of the Federal Constitution regarding equality.
Judicial Commissioner Zainal Aznam Abd Aziz also ruled that the matter had no grounds and no merits for the case to be heard at the Magistrate’s Court.
“I find the transfer of the case from the Magistrate’s Court to the Sessions Court was legal and hence the case should be heard there,” he said
“I also do not agree with counsel (Manjit Singh Dhillon) that the transfer of the case would result in a harsher sentence to be meted out if the accused is found guilty. Hence, the hearing should be done at the Sessions Court and not at the Magistrate’s Court.”
Raja Petra was represented by counsel J Chandra and Amarjit Singh Sidhu while DPP Anselm Fernandes is with the prosecution.
Appeal to be filed
Chandra indicated that they would file an appeal as he felt the matter involved the rights of a person. “The matter should be decided as this is a constitutional issue on Article 8 regarding equality, as the fine accorded under the Sessions and Magistrate’s (courts) differ,” he said.
Raja Petra is charged under section 500 of the Penal Code which allocates a punishment of two years jail or fine. The problem is that if the matter is heard at the Magistrate’s Court, the maximum fine that could be meted out is up to RM10,000. However, if the case is heard at the Sessions Court, there is no limit to the amount.”
Raja Petra, 58, the editor of the Malaysia Today portal had on November 24 claimed trial to three charges of criminal defamation in the Sessions Court. He was initially charged on July 17 in the Magistrate’s Court with three counts of criminal defamation against the deputy prime minister’s wife Rosmah Mansor, acting Colonel Aziz Buyong and Colonel Norhayati Hassan through a statutory declaration.
Raja Petra is alleged to have committed the offences at the High Court Civil 5 in the Jalan Duta court complex at 10.25am on June 18. He faces a maximum two-year jail term or a fine or both, if convicted.
In his statutory declaration, Raja Petra implicated Rosmah and the other two in the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.
However, on August 15, magistrate Nazran Mohd Sham decided to transfer the case to the Sessions Court following an application by Anselm.
“I also do not agree with counsel (Manjit Singh Dhillon) that the transfer of the case would result in a harsher sentence to be meted out if the accused is found guilty.”
Of course, it would. That’s the aim.
But is there anything in the CPC etc that could prevent the transfer – “in the interest of justice” has broad enough definition to allow for the transfer. It does not prejudice the case since guilt has yet to be established. Also there’s nothing mandatory about the sentencing if found guilty i.e. nothing to tie the hands of Sessions Court President to mete out the appropriate sentence fitting the circumstances of the case. But we all know what that means.
Mr Bean - February 14, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Now here’s another problem.
If they were to agree to try the guy at the Magistrates Court, magistrates are always prosecution oriented. Magistrates are recent law graduates, new entrants to judicial service, and are seeking a record for themselves with the government, their employer. If a defendant were to lose the case at the magistrates court which is most likely, he or she would likely appeal. The case then goes to a higher court. If the appeal ends up say in High Court, if the appeal is both against verdict as well as sentencing, and if the judge were to disagree with counsel for the appellant, there’s nothing to prevent the judge hearing the appeal to substitute a higher sentence if guilt is affirmed! Fair? That’s the law.
Mr Bean - February 14, 2009 at 8:13 pm
If you’re going to appeal, you better weigh your chances of reversing the court’s decision with your counsel.
You either accept the guilty verdict and appeal only against the sentencing or appeal against both verdict and sentencing. If you appeal against both then that would give the judge the right to increase sentencing if fould guilty on appeal. Appeal only against sentencing and you may end getting a reduced sentence or you may not – but the judge cannot disturb the original sentence i.e. he cannot increase sentence.
Mr Bean - February 14, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Long Live Petra! Malaysia’s own Hero! We will fight this Racist corrupt BN regime till all Malaysians are free! Viva Raja Petra! Viva Malaysia!
hiu woong sin - February 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm