PERBICARAAN ANWAR IBRAHIM - KES LIWAT 2 - 2010 - HARI 14

18 Jun, 2010

Anwar Gagal Peroleh Laporan Perubatan Saiful

KUALA LUMPUR: Mahkamah Tinggi di sini hari ini menolak permohonan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim supaya dibekalkan beberapa dokumen termasuk laporan perubatan Mohd Saiful Azlan Bukhari.

Hakim Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah membuat keputusan itu atas alasan tiada peruntukan atau asas perundangan yang membolehkan dokumen tersebut dibekalkan kepada barisan pembelaan yang mewakili Anwar dalam perbicaraan kes liwatnya.

Mohamad Zabidin terlebih dahulu mendengar hujahan peguam Karpal Singh selaku peguam utama Ketua Pembangkang tersebut dan juga hujahan Peguam Cara Negara II, Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden yang mewakili barisan pendakwaan.

Karpal menghujahkan pihaknya memerlukan dokumen-dokumen itu untuk kegunaan profesor perubatan forensik yang didatangkan khas dari Australia, Dr David Lawrence Wells bagi membantu barisan pembelaan dalam menyoal balas saksi perubatan.

“Semua dokumen itu adalah relevan untuk membolehkan Wells menasihatkan barisan pembelaan bagi menyoal balas Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim (saksi pendakwaan kedua).

“Wells dalam afidavitnya turut mengesahkan ketiadaan dokumen tersebut menjejaskan kebolehannya dalam membantu pembelaan,” hujah Karpal.

Bagaimanapun, Mohd Yusof membidas hujahan itu dengan berkata, dokumen-dokumen tersebut tidak diperlukan oleh Wells kerana saksi pendakwaan boleh disoal balas semasa perbicaraan.

“Berdasarkan kelayakan yang dinyatakan Wells pada afidavitnya, beliau semestinya pakar dalam bidangnya. Sudah pasti beliau mengetahui apakah kelayakan atau kemahiran yang diperlukan untuk memeriksa seseorang bagi menentukan jika benar berlaku kejadian liwat.

“Beliau juga ada menulis buku dan artikel berkenaan subjek tersebut dan sudah tentu beliau mengetahui prosedur yang digunakan dalam pemeriksaan klinikal dan forensik,” hujah Mohd Yusof.

Beliau juga memohon permohonan itu ditolak memandangkan tiada peruntukan undang-undang yang dinyatakan secara spesifik bagi menyokong permohonan Ahli Parlimen Permatang Pauh tersebut.

Sementara itu, Karpal ketika ditemui berkata, pihaknya akan memfailkan notis kebenaran untuk merayu berhubung keputusan itu di Mahkamah Rayuan Isnin ini.

Ini merupakan kali kedua cubaan Anwar untuk mendapatkan dokumen ditolak selepas permohonan asalnya yang berlanjutan sehingga ke Mahkamah Persekutuan ditolak pada 29 Januari lalu.

Pada 4 Jun lalu, Anwar memfailkan notis usul untuk mendapatkan dokumen tersebut, iaitu sebelum barisan pembelaan perlu menyoal balas Mohd Razali, seorang pakar bedah am dari Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

Permohonan itu menyebabkan perbicaraan liwat ditangguhkan kepada 14 Julai ini.

Selain sejarah perubatan lengkap Mohd Saiful, Anwar turut memohon dibekalkan dengan nota klinikal, bahan, spesimen, pemerhatian, e-mail, nota tulisan tangan, surat, catatan, nota pemerhatian dan kit serangan seksual yang digunakan dalam pemeriksaan itu.

Anwar juga meminta dikemukakan dengan kelayakan dan pengalaman Mohd Razali dan dua lagi doktor, iaitu pakar rawatan kecemasan, Dr Khairul Nizam Hassan dan pakar patologi forensik, Dr Siew Sheue Feng yang memeriksa Mohd Saiful pada 28 Jun 2008.

Anwar sedang dibicarakan kerana didakwa meliwat Mohd Saiful, 25, antara pukul 3.01 dan 4.30 petang, 26 Jun 2008 di Unit 11-5-1 Kondominium Desa Damansara, No 99 Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, di sini,

Pendakwaan dikendalikan mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum penjara 20 tahun dan disebat jika sabit kesalahan.

TRANSKRIP PERBICARAAN ANWAR IBRAHIM KES LIWAT 2

Hujahan Permohonan Case Note Dr. Hospital Kuala Lumpur di bawah Per. 5(1) Federal Constitution(FC)
Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

[9.40 a.m.]
Pihak-pihak:
PP: Semua hadir
PB: KS, SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswam, Sangeet Kaur, (Marissa, Radzlan, Ram Karpal Singh tidak hadir)
AI tidak hadir

MY: Kes untuk pendengaran permohonan oleh AI berdasarkan notis usul 44-139-2010. Pihak pendakwaan masih sama. Pemohon masih peguam-peguam yang sama. Pihak-pihak bersedia.

YA: Kita ada dua permohonan. Salah satu kena withdraw.

KS: Yes YA. We will go for 44-139-2010.

YA: Permohonan 44-138-2010 dibatalkan. Sekarang untuk perbicaraan permohonan 44-139-2010.

KS: YA, we’ve prepared the submission. The basis of the application is stated from page 1 to 3 of our submission. [read submission]

MY: My Lord, the respondent has prepared a written submission, we are opposing the application because of the following reasons: no.1 – no specific law is cited to support this application as per page 4-5; no.2 – there are no contradictions in the evidence given by SP2 in court and the earlier findings in the medical report dated 13.07.2008 at page 5-11; no.3 – the documents requested are not necessary for the purpose of cross-examination of SP2 and the other 2 doctors as per page 11-12; and no.4 – the defence is not entitled to inspect those documents as per page 12-22.

At page 1 to page 3, we cited the application of the applicant. [read page 2, items i, ii, iii and iv]

[read page 3, para 2, 3 and 4]

Our first contention is that why it should be dismissed is because no specific law is cited to support this application. Article 5(1) of FC is general in application. This application is made based on Article 5(1) FC. To what we want to know is that, in a course of the trial, the meanings of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and other relevant law must be taken into consideration.

Before, their application is made under S.51 and S.51A of CPC, but here nothing was stated. This morning, apparently by looking at my learned friend was citing S.51CPC by referring to Raymond Chia and DSAI.

My answer is this, S.51 may be invoked, but it must only be invoked after seeing all the relevant law. For example, S.11EA and S.402A CPC.

[read page 4, para 9], [read case at tab 14]

YA: You are saying that intitulement only stated Article 5 of FC and the case which is too general.

MY: Yes. [read page 6, para 12]. With regard to AI’s affidavit which says that there are contradictions, we do not see any contradiction. We have SP2 repeating the clinical findings which at that point in time was done based on the fact the location of the swab was still unknown. NST is the only newspaper that said the doctor changed his opinion, and I don’t know how they got it.

In Husdi, contradictions happen outside the court. But here, both the documents and testimony of the witness are in court. Now they want to see something outside the court.

YA: But they did not say this. They are saying their expert need the documents. I don’t think that they have said about the hunch.

MY: But in AI’s affidavit says there are contradictions. Why do you need the documents outside the court when the documents are actually in court? Hunch is based on something outside the court as referred to Mokhtar Hashim’s case.

They want for example, complete medical history of SP1. SP2 has already testified as to the medical history of SP1. If they want further they should ask it during cross-examination. This is what cross-examination is all about. They asked for the standard sexual assault Performa and sexual assault kits used in examining SP1. We’ve even asked about the experiences and qualifications of SP2, the equipment used was also asked. As an expert, he must know how the procedure is being done because as a forensic scientist, he knows exactly what need to be observed. If they want something more, it could be elicited from cross- examination. We’ve stated in our submission in page 9.

YA: Your last statement, you mean to say that during cross-examination they may ask about it and not at this stage?

MY: Yes. They may ask. In fact, we’ve already asked those questions. If they want to challenge the procedure etc, they may ask if they want to ensure it. Because he don’t need the documents in order to advise the defence in preparing for cross-examination of the doctors.

[read page 10, para 25]

[read page 11,para 27]

[read page 12, para 32]

[read page 14,para 34]

[read page 14, para 35]

We refer to PP v Ramasami [read page 16, para 37].

[read page 18, para 40]

[read page 19, para 41]

We also referred to case Wong Kok Keong and Balachandran. We also had an extract of Sarkar’s Law of Evidence [read page 19 and 20, para 43].

[read tab 5 on S.159 EA] [read S.160] Until and unless SP2 made reference to all the documents when he is being questioned, the entitlement to look at the documents is prohibited by the law.

[read page 20, para 44]

[read page 20, para 45]

[read page 21, para 46] This is supported by commentary of Augustine Paul [read tab 18, pg 1131, second para]

It is stated in our summary, whether or not the defence is entitled, the documents must first be admissible; no.2, even if not admissible, they can inspect if the documents are being used in refreshing the memory of the witness; and no.3, there must be something to make the court convinced that it is not consistent as in Husdi and Mokhtar Hashim’s case.

The application should be dismissed based on this 3 basis ; firstly, there is no entitlement, secondly – there no contradictions between what is said in court and outside court, thirdly – those documents are not necessary as to helped the expert to advise the defence for cross-examination.

There is no basis for the application either at this juncture or at any time because the documents asked for are inadmissible and the defence are not entitled to it under S.161, lastly there is no basis for any hunch as per Mokhtar Hashim’s case so as to enable the court to supply the documents first to them.

I pray for the application to be dismissed.

KS: We are not going on inconsistency but rather the incapacity of our expert to advice. And this is not being challenged by the Prosecution in the affidavit.

YA: Under the law, is he legally entitled?

KS: Yes. It is necessary for advising us. That is what the law says. Whatever materials asked is relevant to the application. I can’t see why the prosecution are opposing this application. The experts need it and say it, not us. Thus, we pray under the circumstances for our application to be allowed. A fair trail includes fair procedures.

MY: In the case of Ng Hee Tong, it is clear what we cannot answer in the affidavit.

YA: Ng Hee Tong’s case is clear. When can the party can come back for decision? Petang ni boleh tak?

KS: We have matter in Seremban.

YA: Not all of you will be in Seremban, right? I cannot give full judgement, but I can give order. Come back at 12.00 pm.

[10.34 a.m.] Stand down.

[12.02 p.m] Kes dipanggil semula.

MY: Pihak-pihak masih sama.

YA: After going through the submissions of both parties, I find there is no provision and legal basis for the documents to be supplied. Therefore I hereby dismissed the application

[12.03 p.m. - permohonan jenayah selesai]

PERBICARAAN ANWAR IBRAHIM - KES LIWAT 2 - 2010 - HARI 13

3 Jun, 2010

Laporan kimia: Penetrasi berlaku, 2 DNA dikesan
Seorang pakar bedah dari Hospital Kuala Lumpur memberitahu perbicaraan kes liwat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim hari ini bahawa laporan kimia ke atas sampel yang diambil dari dubur bekas pembantu Anwar, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, menunjukkan berlaku penetrasi.

Ketika memberi keterangan di Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim berkata analisis makmal menunjukkan kehadiran DNA dua lelaki.

Dr Mohd Razali, iaitu saksi pendakwaan kedua selepas Mohd Saiful, berkata semasa beliau dan dua lagi doktor menyiapkan laporan klinikal mereka pada 13 Julai 2008, tiada sebarang pendapat konklusif dibuat mengenai penetrasi seperti yang didakwa oleh mangsa memandangkan laporan itu disediakan tanpa analisis sampel daripada Jabatan Kimia.

Dua lagi doktor ialah pakar rawatan kecemasan Dr Khairul Nizam Hassan, dan pakar patologi forensik Dr Siew Sheue Feng.

Pakar forensik Australia, Prof Madya David Lawrence Noel Wells dari Melbourne, yang dilantik oleh pasukan Anwar, hadir di mahkamah hari ini.

Semasa pemeriksaan utama oleh Peguam Cara Negara II Datuk Mohamed Yusof Zainal Abiden, Dr Mohd Razali diminta membacakan laporan kimia itu buat kali pertama di mahkamah.

"Melihat kepada keputusan laporan ini, sejarah kes daripada Mohd Saiful, saya dapat mengatakan secara konklusif sekarang bahawa terdapat penetrasi yang konsisten dengan apa yang diberitahu oleh mangsa kepada mahkamah ini bahawa bahan pelincir digunakan semasa insiden itu dan ini mengakibatkan tiada kecederaan ditemui pada duburnya," kata Dr Mohd Razali.

Bilik khas

Anwar, 63, Ketua Pembangkang dan Anggota Parlimen Permatang Pauh, didakwa meliwat Mohd Saiful, 25, di Unit 11-5-1 Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, antara 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang pada 26 Jun, 2008.

Terdahulu, Dr Mohd Razali, 37, yang bertugas dengan Jabatan Pembedahan HKL, berkata beliau menerima panggilan telefon pada 28 Jun 2008, mengenai kes itu dan diberi taklimat sebelum beliau mula memeriksa dubur Mohd Saiful.

Pemeriksaan itu dikendalikan dalam sebuah bilik khas di hospital berkenaan dengan kehadiran pegawai penyiasat DSP Judy Blacious Pereira.

Beliau berkata Dr Siew telah membantu beliau mengumpul empat sampel dengan dua daripadanya diambil dari rektum atas, satu dari rektum bawah dan satu lagi dari kawasan peri-anal.

"Saya menyerahkan kesemua sampel itu kepada Dr Siew sebelum dihantar ke Jabatan Kimia," kata Dr Mohd Razali.

Disoal selanjutnya oleh Mohamed Yusof mengenai sebab bahan pelincir digunakan semasa pemeriksaan itu, Dr Mohd Razali berkata ia adalah prosedur normal dan juga bagi mengelak sebarang kecederaan selanjutnya.

Saksi pendakwaan kedua itu turut memberitahu mahkamah bahawa liwat juga boleh berlaku tanpa mengakibatkan apa-apa kecederaan.

"Bagaimanapun, dalam kes ini, bahan pelincir digunakan dan sebab itulah kami tidak menemui sebarang kecederaan pada bahagian luar atau dalam dubur Mohd Saiful," jelas Dr Mohd Razali.

Air mani

Analisis makmal ke atas sampel itu yang dijalankan pada 11 Julai 2008 mendedahkan perkara berikut:

* tiada alkohol dan dadah lazim lain yang dapat dikesan dalam sampel darah pesakit,
* kehadiran air mani pada kapas kesat B5, B7, B8 dan B9 (sampel yang diambil oleh Dr Mohd Razali),
* tiada sumber asing DNA daripada kapas kesat yang diambil,
* campuran jenis DNA lelaki daripada kapas kesat B5,
* jenis DNA lelaki daripada dua individu daripada kapas kesat B7, B8 dan B9.

Pemeriks

aan dubur Mohd Saiful menunjukkan tiada parut atau rekahan pada kawasan luar dubur atau sebarang tanda kecederaan terbaru.

Pertikaman lidah turut berlaku antara pihak pendakwaan dan pembelaan apabila Dr Mohd Razali pada mulanya memberi keterangan dalam bahasa Malaysia, menyebabkan peguam Karpal Singh yang mewakili Anwar, mengadu bahawa Wells akan berdepan kesukaran untuk mengikuti prosiding, tambahan pula laporan klinikal dibuat dalam bahasa Inggeris.

Mohamed Yusof berkata terpulang kepada saksi untuk memberi keterangan dalam apa jua bahasa yang beliau selesa dan ini menyebabkan Mohamad Zabidin menangguhkan prosiding untuk membolehkan kedua-dua pihak menyelesaikan perkara itu.

Apabila perbicaraan disambung semula, Dr Mohd Razali memberi keterangan dalam bahasa Inggeris.

Perbicaraan ditangguhkan sehingga pagi esok untuk membolehkan peguam yang mewakili Anwar berbincang dengan Wells.

- Bernama

Air mani bukti tembusan walaupun dubur Saiful tak koyak

KUALA LUMPUR 3 Jun — Kes liwat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang sebelum ini diperkatakan dengan ketiadaan koyakan hari ini dimaklumkan oleh doktor kerajaan — kewujudan air mani di dubur pengadu memadai untuk merumuskan wujudnya tembusan Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim salah seorang daripada tiga doktor yang memeriksa Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan pada 28 Jun 2008 memberitahu ujian sampel menunjukkan adanya air mani walaupun tiada kesan koyakan atau kecederaan pada bahagian dubur Ujian itu dijalankan dua hari selepas kejadian liwat didakwa berlaku “Dengan kesemua laporan yang ada di depan saya saya boleh mengatakan adanya bukti penembusan walaupun tanpa kecederaan klinikal ” kata beliau lagi “Dengan kehadiran kesan air mani ada bukti penembusan di bahagian dubur ” katanya Dr Razali berkata demikian ketika ditanya oleh pendakwa raya Peguam Cara Negara II Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden menyoal mengenai laporan doktor itu sebelum ini pada 28 Jun yang menyebut “tiada kesan kecederaan tidak koyakan tiada penemuan konklusif tentang wujudanya penetrasi di dubur ” Doktor itu menjawab bahawa pada masa itu beliau tiada pengetahuan tentang kewujudan sampel calitan yang diambil daripada Saiful yang mendakwa dia diliwat oleh Ketua Umum Pakatan Rakyat Beliau juga mengakui tiada bukti wujudnya kecederaan atau trauma Menurut satu lagi laporan sampel-sampel calitan itu menunjukkan adanya kesan air mani Laporan itu hanya ditunjukkan kepada Dr Razali oleh pasukan pendakwa raya hari ini ketika sesi soal Ini menyebabkan Dr Razali mengubah rumusan beliau Beliau juga membacakan kandungan laporan yang mengatakan sampel calitan B5 B7 B8 dan B9 yang menyebut tentang kesan air mani di dubur “ Dengan ini saya boleh merumuskan sekarang bahawa adanya bukti tembusan ” kata Dr Razali Peguam utama Anwar Karpal Singh dijangka menyoal balas doktor itu selepas ini Dua minggu lalu Saiful memberitahu mahkamah bahawa dia tidak membasuh duburnya selepas kejadian liwat pada 26 Jun 2008 kerana mahu menyimpan bukti Saiful saksi utama dalam perbicaraan kes liwat ketua pembangkang itu berkata selepas kejadian itu beliau tidak mandi tetapi hanya membilas badannya Pada November lalu pasukan pembela menegaskan dakwaan liwat terhadap Anwar berniat jahat dan tidak boleh diterima memandangkan ketiadaan penemuan perubatan berhubung penetrasi Malah sebelum ini peguam-peguam Anwar memberitahu berdasarkan laporan perubatan oleh pegawai perubatan dari Pusrawi yang mula-mula sekali memeriksa pengadu dinyatakan bahawa dubur itu tidak berdarah tidak cedera tidak bernanah dan ia adalah bersih kering serta kelihatan normal Mereka mendakwa perkara itu turut disokong oleh laporan perubatan Hospital Kuala Lumpur yang menyatakan bahawa penetrasi tidak berlaku.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transkrip Perbicaraan Kes Lieat 2 Anwar Ibrahim

Kredit kepada: malaysianstory.wordpress.com

Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

Pihak-pihak: Seperti terdahulu (dengan kehadiran Mr. Leung dan En. S. Suppiah bagi pihak Majlis Peguam)
ZI peguam pemerhati SP1

[09:56 am]

MY: Memperkenalkan pihak-pihak
KS: We have gone to the site just now
YA: SP1 dipanggil semula

SP1 bersumpah semula
(dalam BM)
KS: Dalam kehidupan seharian, ada bila-bila masa bercakap yang tidak benar?
A: You mean in the past? Ya

Q: Have you ever lied in your live? Of course not under oath?
A: Ya, ada

Q: Kamu bersumpah untuk cakap yang benar bagi keadaan masa lampau?
A:

Q: Pilihanraya kecil di Permatang Pauh?
A: Ulang soalan

Q: Slowly… ada angkat sumpah dalam masjid?
A: Ya

Q: Pada 15 Ogos 2008?
A: Dalam pertengahan bulan Ogos 2008

Q: Tarikh penamaan?
A: Tidak ingat

Q: Dekat dengan tarikh penamaan calon?
A: Ya

Q: Apabila angkat sumpah dekat dengan nomination day?
A: Ya

Q: Ini adalah kebetulan?
A: Ya

Q: Oleh itu tak tahu tentang pilihanraya kecil?
A: Sebelum itu tahu

Q: Bila dapat tahu?
A: Saya tak pasti tetapi saya tahu

Q: 2 minggu sebelum hari pencalonan?
A: Saya tak pasti tetapi saya tahu

Q: Bukan kebetulan?
A: No

Q: Bukan kebetulan pilih 2 hari sebelum itu?
A: Kebetulan

Q: Sebelum itu tak tahu?
A: Saya menunggu untuk AI angkat sumpah

Q: 2 minggu sebelum itu?
A: [SP1 tak sempat menjawab]

YA: He said coincident, then you said no, sampai bila?
KS: [][]

Q: Ada blog sendiri?
A: Ya

Q: Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan?
A: Ya

Q: Pada 2 Ogos 2008 ada menyatakan [dengan tunjukkan saksi satu dokumen]. Baca yang di’highlight’.
A: “Pada AI selamat bertanding”. Saya mengucapkan selamat bertanding. Saya ada cakap dalam blog.

Q: Cadang apa yang jadi adalah dirancang? Mengangkat sumpah sebelum hari penamaan?
A: Tidak

YA: Move on to the next questions

KS: Dalam keterangan ada menyatakan tidak langsung mengetahui perkahwinan Saidati dan Faez?
A: Saya kata saya tak pasti mereka berkahwin atau tidak

Q: Saya kata awak tahu?
A: Saya tahu mereka lari

Q: Bukan lari berkahwin?
A: Saya tak dapat sahkan mereka berkahwin atau tidak

Q: Saya kata mereka berkahwin?
A: Saya tahu mereka lari tetapi tak tahu mereka berkahwin atau tidak

YA: Dia tanya Saidati kahwin atau tidak?
A: Saya tahu dia lari, saya tahu dia kahwin

KS: Don’t lie in court, you know?

Q: Lari dengan Faez?
A: Ya

Q: Ada jumpa lepas perkahwinan?
A: Ada

Q: Many times?
A: 1-2 kali

Q: Ada diugut?
MY: May I object, I think the court should take guideline, section 148 dan s.153.
YA: Ya, apa relevant ini?
KS: I put it to him

MY: May I refer to s. 148 and s. 153 of Evidence Act 1950
KS: It goes to the credibility
MY: No, it’s wrong

MY: S.148 [read] Evidence Act 1950. I think that 148(b)(c) applied here. S.153 Evidence Act 1950 [read]. He said know, it’s not for KS to [][], S.153 applied here to [] on the matter that he testify.
KS: We all know this. This witness is lying and it goes to the credibility.
YA: Objection by MY sustained. Proceed with other points.
KS: May I put it to you that you’re lying when you said you don’t know this person and the marriage?
A: Maksud saya, saya tak dapat sahkan
Q: Tahu orang ini, Faez?
A: Ya

Q: Laporan polis oleh Faez atas ugutan atas dia?
A: Tidak tahu

Q: Dalam keterangan masa dulu, AI ada arahkan awak untuk hantar dokumen pada dia pada 25hb?
A: Tidak

Q: Ada atau tidak, atau 26hb?
A: 25hb pun ada, dokumen pada 25hb tidak. Hanya 26hb sahaja

Q: 26hb, En Ibrahim Yaacob yang suruh hantar dokumen?
A: Setuju

Q: Apa yang dinyatakan dalam keterangan khasnya yang terjadi dalam unit 11-5-1, langsung tidak benar?
A: Tak setuju

Q: Cadang, saya katakan AI dalam unit 11-5-2? Tidak dalam unit 11-5-1, tentang apa yang terjadi unit itu tidak benar?
A: Mohon untuk tanya masa. Dia berada dalam unit 11-5-1

Q: AI berada dalam 11-5-2?
A: Tidak

KS: Whether alibi witnesses are here, we need to identify them in court, the witnesses for alibi.
YA: The purpose is to put your defence ASAP, notice must be given, your defence is alibi
KS: Notice have been given long ago. As early as 2009
MY: I confirmed
KS: Other questions related to what happen in that unit, apply for a closed proceeding. MY can re-examine first.
MY: No, let’s us finish first.
YA: You can ask him. Keterangan lepas ini adalah tertutup, orang awam diminta keluar sekejap.
[10:22 am]

Prosiding ‘in camera’

KS: Dulu keterangan pada 4 Feb 2010, menyatakan antara lain adakah gel pelincir yang kamu arahkan untuk dibawa adakah sama dengan yang ditunjukkan? Yang ada ditunjukkan kepada kamu?
A: Ya

Q: Eksibit ini bila beri pada polis?
A: Kalau tidak silap saya pada 28hb di wad kecemasan dan saya diarahkan untuk simpan. Saya serahkan pada pagi 29hb

Q: Beri pada siapa?
A: IO, ASP

Q: Ada akuan terima?
A: Ada saya ada tandatangan

Q: Dalam keterangan in camera menyatakan ‘semasa saya diliwat, saya ada letakkan krim KY Jelly dan tertumpah pada carpet dan tepi tuala itu di sebelah kiri?
A: Ya

Q: KY Jelly adalah bahan yang penting dalam kes ini?
A: Saya rasa

Q: Sangat penting?
A: Saya rasa

Q: KY Jelly tak ada di mana-mana laporan, laporan chemist atau mana-mana laporan yang lain?
A: Saya tak faham soalan

Q: I’m suggesting that this KY does not appear in any report of the chemist?
A: Saya tak pernah tengok laporan, saya tak tahu

Q: Ini adalah ‘after thought’?
A: Saya tak faham

YA: Ini adalah satu pemikiran semula awak?
A: Maksud YA, mereka-reka? Tidak

Q: Diarahkan oleh AI untuk bawa KY jelly?
A: Ya

Q: Itu tak benar?
A: Tidak

Re-examination
MY: Kamu ditanyakan tentang sumpah kamu di masjid, cadangan peguam adalah ianya dirancang, kamu kata tidak benar, sila jelaskan?
Sepanjang awal Julai selepas saya buat laporan polis, beberapa ulama terkenal seperti Tok Guru Nik Aziz dan Mufti Besar Perlis, Dato’ Asri menyarankan saya dan AI bersumpah atau bermubahalah untuk menunjukkan siapa yang benar dalam kes ini. Jadi kalau tak silap, dalam pertengahan July, tak pasti dalam blog atau tidak, saya pertimbangkan saranan ulama, dan saya pelawa AI bersumpah seperti saranan. Selepas dicadangkan, saya tunggu respon AI dan selepas 2-3 minggu, mendapat respon yang negatif, pihak saya fikirkan memandangnkan AI tidak sudi, saya saja yang buat sumpah itu sendiri. Tempoh masa setelah menanti lebih dari 2-3 minggu dan kebetulan dekat dengan tarikh penamaan calon seperti cadangan peguam KS tadi.

MY: Itu saya, pohon saksi dilepaskan.
YA: Saksi dilepaskan, itu saja.

MY: Selepas ini Doktor.
YA: Stand down 5 minit.

[10:33 am]
[10:45 am]
JB: Kes dipanggil semula
MY: Pihak-pihak seperti yang sama, pohon dipanggil Dr. Mohd. Razali
KS: I’m asking permission for my expert to be here.
YA: Any problem MY?
MY: No

SP2 – Mohd Razali bin Ibrahim Angkat sumpah BM, pakar bedah am HKL, 37 tahun
Pemeriksaan Utama
MY: Doctor seorang pakar bedah am?
KS: It should be in English because he’s an expert.
YA: Up to the witness. He sworn in BM
MY: This is a trial, saksi bercakap mengikut Akta Bahasa Kebangsaan 1965 dalam BM
YA: Cakap dalam BM
SP2: Boleh

MY: Pakar bedah apa?
A: Bedah am

Q: Sebelum tanya tentang bidang tugas, apakah kelayakan Dr.?
A: Memulakan pelajaran di Kelantan, sambung pelajaran di USM, juga di Kelantan, menamatkan kursus perubatan pada 1998 dan mula menjalankan tugas pegawai perubatan siswazah di Hospital Ipoh, kemudian saya bertugas Hospital Selayang selama 3 tahun, kemudian tahun 2003, saya sambung Sarjana Pembedahan di HKL, di UKM. Kursus Master tamat pada 2007 dan bertugas sebagai pakar di HKL sehingga sekarang.

Q: Apakah bidang pengkhususan semasa di Sarjana?
A: Kita diajar untuk pembedahan mengenai masalah anggota manusia bermula dengan leher hingga ke bawah, spesifik di bahagian punggung, dubur, kalau di bahagian leher masalah seperti tirod, sinus dan [][]

Q: Bahagian dubur?
A: Akan dilakukan jika ada masalah

Q: Sehingga hari ini ada berapa banyak kes yang melibatkan pemeriksaan pesakit di bahagian dubur, dari Dr. mula bertugas hingga sekarang?
A: Ada banyak, lebih dari 100 kes

Q: Adakah melibatkan pemeriksaan luar dan dalam dubur?
A: Bergantung kepada kes yang datang, jika ada aduan tentang masalah dubur, akan lihat

Q: Bahagian dalam dubur, kes secara am?
A: Lebih kurang 100 kes tetapi saya tak ada dokumen details

Q: Apabila ambil sampel dalam dubur untuk tujuan apa?
A: Saya bahagian klinikal, biasanya jika ada jangkitan perlu ambil sampel untuk pemeriksaan makmal

Q: Pemeriksaan bagaimana?
A: Untuk pemeriksaan makmal

Q: Untuk sampel, apa peralatan digunakan, dari pakaian dsg?
A: Mesti gunakan peralatan yang steril untuk ambil sampel

Q: Bagaimana peralatan untuk ambil sampel?
A: Sampel boleh diambil dengan pelbagai cara, swab dan syringe untuk ambil sampel cecair.

KS: We are having problem in translating in BI on the spot, no point of having our expert here if he testify in BM.
YA: Stand down for a while

[10:54 am]
[11:00 am]
JB: Kes dipanggil semula
MY: Saya cuba untuk accommodate
YA: Boleh beri keteragan dalam BI? Selalu dalam BM tetapi ada expert di sini. Jadi lebih cepat kalau dalam BM
A: Boleh

SP2 – angkat sumpah semula
(dalam BI)
MY: You said that there is 3 methods to take sample?
3 methods -swab, syringe (picagari) and

Q: It must be sterile?
A: Yes

Q: What about yourself?
The person that taking the spesimen, if for micro-biology must be with good clothing []and with a mask to protect yourself.

Q: Glove?
A: Yes

Q: If for DNA?
A: I’m not an expert in DNA but in any hospital, the practise, is the same.

Q: Were you on duty on 28 June 2008?
A: I was on-call doctor

Q: As what?
A: Surgeon on call

Q: Time?
A: 24 hours, starting from 8 pm to 8 am the next morning

Q: In HKL?
A: Yes

Q: Now, at 7 pm did you received any call?
A: Yes, from my fellow officer that there was a case for me to attend. They wanted me to be there at 9 pm as other doctors involved as well

Q: What were you informed?
A: They told me there was a sodomy case; the patient was brought to a special room

Q: Where were you at that time?
A: At that time I was at home

Q: When were you expected to be?
I was expected to be at Special Unit at 9 o’clock

Q: Who were there?
A: When I arrived at the room, 2 specialists were there, Dr Khairul and Dr Siew and other person, I remember DSP Jude

MY: May I call Dr Khairul and Dr Siew for identification
SP2 identified Dr. Khairul Nizam bin Hassab and Dr. Siew Sheue Feng

YA: Nama penuh
Dr. Khairul Nizam dan Dr Siew Sheue Feng

Supt Jude
This is the police officer that was around, ASP Jude
SP2 identified Supt Jude

Q: What transpired in the room?
A: There was one police officer, who gave summary to what happen then, after discussed we decided to proceed with the examination of the person

Q: Was the person to be examined in that room?
A: Yes, in that room

Q: Can you identify?
A: Yes

Q: Did you know his name by that time?
A: Yes, Saiful

SP1 identified by SP2

Q: You, Nizam and Siew interviewed Saiful? Did any of you interview him?
A: The 2 specialists did that but I was not involved

Q: But were you there?
A: Yes, I was

Q: Was his story consistent with the Medical Officer (MO) and the briefing?
A: Yes, consistent with the MO and the briefing
Q: All 3 in the room?
A: Yes

Q: Who else?
A: Police officers, nurses and medical assistants

Q: Was the examination done the doctors, one by one?
A: Yes, it started by Khairul, me and Siew

Q: What did you examine?
A: Involve anal and rectum, after Dr Khairul, and after I get permission on the victim, I did examination by external part and followed by the internal part using proctoscope.

Q: Is this for the internal part?
[MY showing proctoscope with plastic wrapper to SP2]
A: Yes, this is the proctoscope. I’m using something similar like this. Yes, I used proctoscope for internal examination of the victim

Q: How to used?
[SP2 explained the process using proctoscope] to see the inner part of the victim

Q: Did you insert this with any assistant, that day?
A: When I checked Saiful, I tried to. I’m worried, since he claimed that he was sodomized, I tried not to put in anything, but I have problem putting proctoscope in, then I need to use lubricant.

Q: What lubricant did you used?
A: Lignociene Gel

Q: What did you find?
A: I managed to do the examination.
I checked him, and what I found externally, the anus was moist compared to any other area, but I did not found any injury, trauma on any other part. But I found a small haemorrhoid but of no significance.

Q: What happen if you did not used lubricant?
A: I might have probe putting in the proctoscope because of the nature of the body and if I were to try to push it further, it will cause injury.

Q: Would you know that Saiful have been examine before by other doctor, using a proctoscope?
A: Yes, I was informed

Q: But externally and internally, there was no injury?
A: Yes

Q: After examined, did u do anything else?
Dr. Siew was around, so we decided to take inner sample, by using the swab, I took sample from inside and outside. I take one swab from perinal, and one of swab of high rectum and while coming out slowly, one low rectum swab.

Q: When you took the sample, were you assisted?
A: Yes, by Dr. Siew

Q: After that what happen to the swab?
A: I passed it to Dr Siew for labelling of the specimen

Q: Did you know what he did?
A: I didn’t see it, I just passed it to him as I was not involved.

Q: Refer to swab stick, did you use this?
A: Yes, to take the swab

MY: Can we mark it as evidence, swab stick?
YA: Satu swab stick as P19
P19 – swab stick
P20 – proctoscope

Q: This P19, did you have to place in a container?
A: Yes

Q: Show SP2 to a container.
A: The same but colour might be difference but this is the container that we used.

MY: Mark as P21
P21 – container

Q: Did you jointly prepare a report, signed by the 3 of you?
A: Yes

Q: Show SP2 to a doctor, glance thru it and look at the last page, did you recognise that signature?
A: Yes, my signature in number 2

Q: Confirmed that this is the report based on the examination?
A: Yes

MY: Mark it as P22
P22 – Medical report HKL dated 13 July 2008

Q: In this report at page 2, on the anal and proctoscope examination, it stated here ‘no tear or contact bleeding’ and as a result of that at page. 4, the conclusion was that, no conclusive clinical finding suggestive of penetration’?
A: Yes

YA: Need the original, photostat is IDD16
MY: Original is with SP2
Q: In this report at page 2, on the anal and proctoscope examination, it stated here ‘no tear or contact bleeding’ and as a result of that at page. 4, the conclusion was that, no conclusive clinical finding suggestive of penetration’?
A: Conclusion number 1 is based on history and examination; there is nothing to say that there is penetration to the anus or rectum.

Q: In no. 2, lab, in order to conclusively say there is a penetration do you need the DNA test?
A: The reason we cannot come out with a definite conclusion was because we do not have the result from the lab and no definite location of the specimens.

Q: Can we confine to conclusion no 1, does it mean that no conclusive clinically finding suggestive of penetration, does it mean penetration at all?
A: No

Q: Look, now it is not equal, [][]?
A: If I don’t have the finding, I cannot say that because we can have a sodomy without injury

Q: The other Doctors, did they take sample also?
A: Yes

Q: All this, are they stated in the report?
A: There are 2 other sample of high rectal swabs kept in our Forensic Department in case anything happen in the lab

Q: Other than that, other than the rectal area, did the other doctors take sample from other areas?
A: Yes, in page 3

Q: If I may refer to page 3, all specimen labelled by Dr Siew and lab analysis revel the following “Presence of semen on swab label B5, B7, B8 and B9, so what did you guys are saying actually?
A: At that time when we have the report we did not know where the location of B5, B7, B8 and B9 were taken from?

Q: Item no 2, page 3?
A: “Presence of semen on swabs B5, B7, B8 and B9”

Q: You said, you did not know where the sample taken from?
A: Yes

Q: Do you know what Dr Siew do with it?
A: In general, he sealed it, packed it and then passed it to the IO

Q: Were you there?
A: I was there but I did not see it

Q: Did you see Jude leaving with the specimen?
A: No

Q: Was he there?
A: Yes, he was there

Q: If you today, in this court, know exactly the location B5, B7, B8 and B9, would you be able to conclude whether there was a penetration?
MY: I want to show a document handed to Jude, as ID to the witness
Q: Look at the document, what document is this?
A: This form of process handling the specimen and submitted to ASP.

Q: The date?
A: 29 June, early morning

Q: Document saying that specimen passed to Jude?
A: Yes

MY: Mark it as ID23
ID23 – borang pengendalian spesimen Mediko-Legal bertarikh 29 Jun 2008

Q: I will show you another document, read the 1st page?
A: Borang Polis Di Raja Malaysia, contoh-contoh dan / atau barang kes untuk pemeriksaan atau cerakinan

Q: This form sent to whom?
A: To Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kimia / Ahli Kimia Kanan send by Jude Blacius and specimen to B to B10.

Q: Page 2 of the document, what did it say about B5, B7, B8 and B9?
B5 – Swab from perianal region diambil dari Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan.
B7- High Rectal Swab diambil dari Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan
B8 – High Rectal Swab diambil dari Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan
B9 – Low Rectal Swab diambil dari Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan

Q: All this is a sample that you took from rectal area of Saiful?
A: Yes

MY: Mark it as ID24
YA: ID24 – Borang Penyerahan Sample to Jabatan Kimia

MY: Now, I’ll straight go to the chemist report.
Q: What document is this?
A: It a report by Jabatan Kimia Malaysia

Q: You read the 1st para, can you confirmed refer to the specimen that Jude received from all of you?
A: Yes, I confirmed that all exhibit is from us to Jude

Q: Look in page 2, after the B7, B8, B9 and B10, you still did not know the location?
[read ]” no semen from other swabs”?
A: Yes

Q: Look at page 3?
Q: Put ID23, ID24 and chemist report with your medical report? Now can you tell where B5 from?
A: Yes, B5 is from perianal region, B7 is from high rectal swab, B8 is from high rectal swab and B9 is from low rectal swab.

Q: Based on the history, your examination and you know where B5, B7, B8 and B9, can you conclude that there is evidence of penetration?
A: Yes, if I know the location now, I can confirm that there was an anal penetration.

Q: Were you told by Saiful, if any aid were used?
A: Yes, a lubricant

Q: Is it consistent there is anal penetration, with a lubricant, and semen was found?
A: I gather that and I can conclude to anal penetration

Q: The report you and other 2 doctors signed, whether it was a complete report, bearing in mind of items taken and you did not know the location?
A: It is a complete report but without the knowledge of the location

Q: Now that you have known the location of B5, B7, B8 and B9, can you tell the court what is your conclusion?
A: With all the evidence now in front of me, there is an anal penetration

Q: Even without injury?
A: Yes

Q: Is it consistent with penile penetration?
A: With the DNA semen, I say there is a penile penetration
MY: May I mark chemist report?
ID25 – chemist report
KS: We reserved our cross
YA: You have your expert here
MY: I have a problem here. If they intend to reserved the cross examination yesterday, we can proceed with this witness yesterday, but we had to wait for their expert. KS want [] because their expert was not here, now their expert is here. Again we accommodate the defence, just now KS asked for SP2 to testified in BI even though he’s more comfortable in BM, [][] now what is the reason to reserved cross, I would agree if KS want to stand down for a while, I have no objection to that.

YA: Stand down for 10 minutes

[12:07 pm]
MY, NH, KS, PC, RK, CV masuk ke dalam kamar hakim
[12:28 pm]
Pihak-pihak keluar dari kamar hakim

[12:31 pm]
JB: Kes dipanggil semula

MY: Pihak seperti terdahulu. Pemeriksaan balas SP2
KS: We’re applying an adjournment until tomorrow to have a discussion with our expert we’ll proceed with the cross tomorrow morning
MY: I’m placing my objection to this, maybe we can start at 3 pm, but I’ll leave it to the court
YA: Saya benarkan tangguh hingga esok untuk peguam bincang dengan pakar mereka keterangan hari ini. Esok Jumaat sila awal sedikit
KS: Pukul 9 pagi
YA: Ya, 9 pagi. Mahkamah tangguh.

[12:34 pm]