Thursday, July 07, 2011

More info of the Police screw up.

More info on the case can be found here.

I also read from the newspaper that the victim has no case against the government. Three words came to my mind. WTF?!

I extra some key point from the report.

The judge was Justice Woo Bih Li.

SSI Zainal also breached rules governing the conduct of police officers when he recorded the first statement on a slip of paper and transferred it to his field diary much later in the day - a move Justice Rajah said was 'clearly unacceptable'…..

Justice Rajah said the prosecution had not been able to give any plausible reason for why SSI Zainal, a seasoned investigator with 28 years of experience, failed to comply with the rules. He said Mr Ismil was in a vulnerable state when his first statement was taken as he was under the influence of drugs. He was 'prone to be vulnerable to suggestions and manipulations when... under stress or threat'…..

What exactly happened when the statement was taken? Any other witness beside SSI Zainal?

Why his conviction was overturned
•Mr Ismil's first two police statements confessing to attacking Madam Tham should have been found inadmissible.
After they were recorded in a police car and the police station, they were not read back to Mr Ismil. He was also not given the chance to make corrections, and neither statement was signed by him. This is a breach of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Very scary. This imply anyone can confess a crime for you.

Mr Ismil's first statement was not recorded in the investigator's pocket book or field diary but on a slip of paper, and the entry was transferred to his field diary much later in the day. His second statement was also not immediately recorded in the pocket book or field diary.

Police not following procedure.

Mr Ismil, a drug abuser, was under the influence of drugs when he was first questioned. The trial judge preferred the evidence of the prosecution psychiatrist and found that his withdrawal symptoms had lessened by the time he was questioned.

I thought a judge should be unbias and take need to take all evidence into account why hey preferred the prosection psychiatrist report? IF in doubt should a 3rd party psychiatrist be consulted?

But the appeal court said the trial judge was wrong to determine that Mr Ismil 'miraculously recovered' just before giving his statement.

Defence psychiatrists said that Mr Ismil, who has an IQ of only 73, was vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation, so it was likely the confession was false. But the prosecution psychiatrist disagreed.
The appeal court said the trial judge erred in preferring the evidence of the psychiatrist, who did the interview without a Malay interpreter. The appeal court noted that there was no objective evidence linking Mr Ismil to the crime.

If you asked me the police and the Judge really screwed up man.