Court Of Appeal Ruling; Sukma Darmawan Breathes Easy (For Now).
Sukma Darmawan. I'm sure the name still rings a bell. He's the chap many considered a fall guy along with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's former speech writer, Dr Munawar Ahmad Anees in the court drama following the former deputy PM's sacking.
Sukma had pleaded guilty in 1998 on the charge of committing an act of gross indecency involving Datuk Seri Anwar and was handed a 6 months prison sentence by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
Read the full report from Bernama:
After eight years, businessman Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja is given another chance by the Court of Appeal here Wednesday to prove his innocence on the charge of committing an act of gross indecency involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. A three-member panel led by Justice Datuk Gopal Sri Ram unanimously quashed Sukma Darmawan's conviction and six months jail term meted out by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court after he pleaded guilty in 1998. The quorum allowed Sukma Darmawan's appeal to remit the case back to the Sessions Court for a retrial after holding that his plea of guilt was manifestly unsafe because there was suppression of material facts showing his innocence.
The court ordered the case to be mentioned at the Sessions Court tomorrow. Sukma Darmawan, Anwar's adopted brother, has already served two-and-a-half months of the jail term and still has another two weeks to serve to complete the jail term. He is currently released on bail of RM10,000 with one surety. "I am a bit relieved with the court's decision. However, no matter what, we still have to wait until tomorrow (when the case is mentioned in the Sessions Court). It has been a trauma for me as this case has been so long pending. Hopefully there would be good news tomorrow," said Sukma Darmawan.
Presiding with Sri Ram were justices Datuk Hashim Yusoff and Datuk James Foong. On Sept 19, 1998, Sukma Darmawan and Anwar's former speech writer, Dr Munawar Ahmad Anees, were sentenced to six months jail each after they pleaded guilty under section 377D of the Penal Code to committing an act of gross indecency with Anwar by allowing the former deputy prime minister to sodomise him. They were alleged to have committed the offence at Anwar's official residence in Jalan Damansara in April 1998.
Munawar's appeal is still pending in the Court of Appeal. After that, the prosecution preferred sodomy and abetment charges against Sukma Darmawan and corruption charges as well as sodomy charges against Anwar. They were respectively convicted on those charges and sentenced to jail. Last year, Anwar and Sukma were freed by the Federal Court which quashed their sodomy convictions and jail terms (Anwar was sentenced to nine years jail and Sukma Darmawan was jailed six years and four strokes of the rotan).
Sukma Darmawan's counsel, Gobind Singh Deo, argued that there was a medical report (by a Dr Zahari Noor who examined Sukma Darmawan) showing that there was no penetration but the prosecution did not disclose the facts to the court. Submitting on the voluntariness of Sukma Darmawan's plea of guilt, he said his client alleged that he was under serious pressure when he pleaded guilty to the charge. "We are asking the court to set aside the conviction. We are not asking for an acquittal. We are asking for a retrial. Let him have his day in court. If the court then finds him guilty, so be it," said Gobind Singh.
Sri Ram interjected, saying that even if Sukma Darmawan sought an acquittal, the court would not allow it. Gobind Singh said there was a Federal Court decision which rejected Sukma Darmawan's confession as involuntary and added that the confession was tendered by Sukma Darmawan's lawyer to support his mitigation. Sri Ram said the fact that Sukma Darmawan's lawyer presented the confession to the Sessions Court judge was very unusual and that should have alerted the Sessions Court judge to be suspicious. "The Sessions Court judge should have asked why are you tendering the confession if the prosecution is not tendering. This is suspicious," Sri Ram said, adding that if a confession was deemed involuntary, so must the plea of guilt be deemed involuntary.
The judge questioned whether Sukma Darmawan's plea of guilt was rendered unsafe since the Federal Court had found his confession to be involuntary as the prosecution had relied on the same facts to sustain his plea of guilt. Deputy public prosecutor Nurul Huda Noraini Mohamed Noor agreed with the judge but said the prosecution had to challenge the confession in view that Sukma Daramawan had changed his mind later.
"You're telling us to shut our eyes to the Federal Court judgment? We are talking about the liberty of an individual. How can we close our eyes and fold our arms and let injustice walk by. You see, the Federal Court judgment is staring in our faces. If they find it suspicious then why not the High Court judge find it to be out of the ordinary," Sri Ram said. Nurul Huda objected to Sukma's bid for a retrial contending that it was not a requirement for the prosecution to prove penetration to secure conviction in gross indecency cases. The medical report was made five months after the alleged incident, she added.She said Sukma Darmawan's conviction was not irregular but was in accordance with the law.
After the verdict, Anwar, who was present in court, told reporters that the defence proposed to call former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the Attorney-General to the witness stand in the trial.-- BERNAMA
Sukma had pleaded guilty in 1998 on the charge of committing an act of gross indecency involving Datuk Seri Anwar and was handed a 6 months prison sentence by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
Read the full report from Bernama:
After eight years, businessman Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja is given another chance by the Court of Appeal here Wednesday to prove his innocence on the charge of committing an act of gross indecency involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. A three-member panel led by Justice Datuk Gopal Sri Ram unanimously quashed Sukma Darmawan's conviction and six months jail term meted out by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court after he pleaded guilty in 1998. The quorum allowed Sukma Darmawan's appeal to remit the case back to the Sessions Court for a retrial after holding that his plea of guilt was manifestly unsafe because there was suppression of material facts showing his innocence.
The court ordered the case to be mentioned at the Sessions Court tomorrow. Sukma Darmawan, Anwar's adopted brother, has already served two-and-a-half months of the jail term and still has another two weeks to serve to complete the jail term. He is currently released on bail of RM10,000 with one surety. "I am a bit relieved with the court's decision. However, no matter what, we still have to wait until tomorrow (when the case is mentioned in the Sessions Court). It has been a trauma for me as this case has been so long pending. Hopefully there would be good news tomorrow," said Sukma Darmawan.
Presiding with Sri Ram were justices Datuk Hashim Yusoff and Datuk James Foong. On Sept 19, 1998, Sukma Darmawan and Anwar's former speech writer, Dr Munawar Ahmad Anees, were sentenced to six months jail each after they pleaded guilty under section 377D of the Penal Code to committing an act of gross indecency with Anwar by allowing the former deputy prime minister to sodomise him. They were alleged to have committed the offence at Anwar's official residence in Jalan Damansara in April 1998.
Munawar's appeal is still pending in the Court of Appeal. After that, the prosecution preferred sodomy and abetment charges against Sukma Darmawan and corruption charges as well as sodomy charges against Anwar. They were respectively convicted on those charges and sentenced to jail. Last year, Anwar and Sukma were freed by the Federal Court which quashed their sodomy convictions and jail terms (Anwar was sentenced to nine years jail and Sukma Darmawan was jailed six years and four strokes of the rotan).
Sukma Darmawan's counsel, Gobind Singh Deo, argued that there was a medical report (by a Dr Zahari Noor who examined Sukma Darmawan) showing that there was no penetration but the prosecution did not disclose the facts to the court. Submitting on the voluntariness of Sukma Darmawan's plea of guilt, he said his client alleged that he was under serious pressure when he pleaded guilty to the charge. "We are asking the court to set aside the conviction. We are not asking for an acquittal. We are asking for a retrial. Let him have his day in court. If the court then finds him guilty, so be it," said Gobind Singh.
Sri Ram interjected, saying that even if Sukma Darmawan sought an acquittal, the court would not allow it. Gobind Singh said there was a Federal Court decision which rejected Sukma Darmawan's confession as involuntary and added that the confession was tendered by Sukma Darmawan's lawyer to support his mitigation. Sri Ram said the fact that Sukma Darmawan's lawyer presented the confession to the Sessions Court judge was very unusual and that should have alerted the Sessions Court judge to be suspicious. "The Sessions Court judge should have asked why are you tendering the confession if the prosecution is not tendering. This is suspicious," Sri Ram said, adding that if a confession was deemed involuntary, so must the plea of guilt be deemed involuntary.
The judge questioned whether Sukma Darmawan's plea of guilt was rendered unsafe since the Federal Court had found his confession to be involuntary as the prosecution had relied on the same facts to sustain his plea of guilt. Deputy public prosecutor Nurul Huda Noraini Mohamed Noor agreed with the judge but said the prosecution had to challenge the confession in view that Sukma Daramawan had changed his mind later.
"You're telling us to shut our eyes to the Federal Court judgment? We are talking about the liberty of an individual. How can we close our eyes and fold our arms and let injustice walk by. You see, the Federal Court judgment is staring in our faces. If they find it suspicious then why not the High Court judge find it to be out of the ordinary," Sri Ram said. Nurul Huda objected to Sukma's bid for a retrial contending that it was not a requirement for the prosecution to prove penetration to secure conviction in gross indecency cases. The medical report was made five months after the alleged incident, she added.She said Sukma Darmawan's conviction was not irregular but was in accordance with the law.
After the verdict, Anwar, who was present in court, told reporters that the defence proposed to call former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the Attorney-General to the witness stand in the trial.-- BERNAMA
posted by The Malaysian. at 6/14/2006 08:30:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home