The Court of Appeal was told today that Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers were the prime suspects in DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock's death and their evidence should therefore be treated with caution.
Counsel Gobind Singh, representing Teoh's family, contended that the evidence of independent witnesses during the inquest at the Shah Alam Coroner Court revealed the MACC officers were not telling the truth.
Gobind alleged that there were evidence that the officers had used force against Teoh before he was found dead on July 16, 2009.
He also submitted that the Coroner's Court should not use higher standard proof in reaching for an open verdict in Teoh's case.
"There were sufficient grounds for the Coroner to reach a verdict of death by homicide or person present at MACC office, where the decease was detained overnight," he said before a three-member panel Court of Appeal judges chaired by Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof.
Two other panel members were Mah Weng Kwai and Hamid Sultan Abu Backer.
Gobind contended that the Coroner's Court and the Shah Alam High Court, which upheld the open verdict of the inquest, failed to take note that the inquest was more to fact finding exercise when they adopted higher test of beyond reasonable doubt in establishing whether there were criminal elements involved in Teoh's death.
Porntip never visited crime scene
Meanwhile, the prosecution, represented by deputy public prosecutors Nadia Hanim Tajudin and Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas, submitted that evidence by four experts, including British forensic expert Prof Peter Vanezis, during the inquest found the injuries sustained by Teoh were consistent with pre-fall injuries.
Nadia Hanim said only the expert called by the appellant (Teoh's brother, Teoh Meng Kee), Thai pathologist Porntip Rojanasunand disagreed with the view by concluding that 80 per cent was homicide and 20 per cent was suicide with injuries on Teoh's neck might be due to strangulation.
Nadia Hanim said Pornthip relied more on photographs taken before the first post mortem and that the pathologist was never present during the autopsy.
"She was more speculative and very inconsistent when giving her views, especially on the neck injury suffered by Teoh," she added.
She also said Pornthip never visited the crime scene.
Justice Mohamad Ariff ordered both parties to file their written submissions within two weeks before the court set the date to deliver its judgment.
Meng Kee is appealing against the decision by the Coroner's Court on June 5,2010, that Teoh's death was not due to suicide or murder and there was no third party involved in the death.
Teoh, 30, was found sprawled on the fifth floor landing of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam where the MACC headquarters was formerly located, on the morning of July 16, 2009.
After the Coroner's Court handed down the open verdict decision, Meng Kee filed an application to the High Court to have that decision reviewed.
However, the High Court in Shah Alam rejected his (Meng Kee's) review application on December 1, 2011.
Meng Kee obtained leave from the Court of Appeal on February 2, last year to appeal against the decision of the High Court.
Source : Bernama
Counsel Gobind Singh, representing Teoh's family, contended that the evidence of independent witnesses during the inquest at the Shah Alam Coroner Court revealed the MACC officers were not telling the truth.Gobind alleged that there were evidence that the officers had used force against Teoh before he was found dead on July 16, 2009.
He also submitted that the Coroner's Court should not use higher standard proof in reaching for an open verdict in Teoh's case.
"There were sufficient grounds for the Coroner to reach a verdict of death by homicide or person present at MACC office, where the decease was detained overnight," he said before a three-member panel Court of Appeal judges chaired by Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof.
Two other panel members were Mah Weng Kwai and Hamid Sultan Abu Backer.
Gobind contended that the Coroner's Court and the Shah Alam High Court, which upheld the open verdict of the inquest, failed to take note that the inquest was more to fact finding exercise when they adopted higher test of beyond reasonable doubt in establishing whether there were criminal elements involved in Teoh's death.
Porntip never visited crime scene
Meanwhile, the prosecution, represented by deputy public prosecutors Nadia Hanim Tajudin and Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas, submitted that evidence by four experts, including British forensic expert Prof Peter Vanezis, during the inquest found the injuries sustained by Teoh were consistent with pre-fall injuries.
Nadia Hanim said only the expert called by the appellant (Teoh's brother, Teoh Meng Kee), Thai pathologist Porntip Rojanasunand disagreed with the view by concluding that 80 per cent was homicide and 20 per cent was suicide with injuries on Teoh's neck might be due to strangulation.Nadia Hanim said Pornthip relied more on photographs taken before the first post mortem and that the pathologist was never present during the autopsy.
"She was more speculative and very inconsistent when giving her views, especially on the neck injury suffered by Teoh," she added.
She also said Pornthip never visited the crime scene.
Justice Mohamad Ariff ordered both parties to file their written submissions within two weeks before the court set the date to deliver its judgment.
Meng Kee is appealing against the decision by the Coroner's Court on June 5,2010, that Teoh's death was not due to suicide or murder and there was no third party involved in the death.
Teoh, 30, was found sprawled on the fifth floor landing of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam where the MACC headquarters was formerly located, on the morning of July 16, 2009.
After the Coroner's Court handed down the open verdict decision, Meng Kee filed an application to the High Court to have that decision reviewed.
However, the High Court in Shah Alam rejected his (Meng Kee's) review application on December 1, 2011.
Meng Kee obtained leave from the Court of Appeal on February 2, last year to appeal against the decision of the High Court.
Source : Bernama
No comments:
Post a Comment