AS ALTANTUYA WOULD TELL NAJIB – ‘TOO BAD BUT IT’S ALL ABOUT THE POINTS OF LAW!’ – EVEN AS CONVICTED ‘NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT’ EX-PM NOW PINS HIS HOPES ON AN ‘ENGLAND MARI’ LAWYER TO GET HIM OFF THE SRC HOOK

Finally Najib Hires New Lawyer, England Mari

A lawyer friend called me last nite and said that at last Najib had taken my advice about getting a new lawyer to argue his case. This is for his final appeal in the Federal Court over the 12 year jail and RM210 million fine in the RM42 Million SRC case. Here is the news:

 


N
ajib to engage Queen’s Counsel (QC) from UK 

  • QC to argue appeal
  • Najib, 68 charged in court and found guilty
  • Court of Appeal dismissed application for fresh evidence 

did not meet four strict elements required under law:

  1. the evidence was not made available at the trial
  2. the issue of relevance 
  3. credibility
  4. would evidence have created reasonable doubt 
  • court upheld conviction, 12 years’ jail, RM210m fine 
  • for misappropriating RM42 million in SRC funds
  • three-member bench dismissed Najib’s appeal 

My Comments :

Well first of all Mat Salleh lawyers will be super expensive. He will ask to be paid in British pounds. And since this is a criminal case and a final appeal, he will likely ask to be paid up front, in advance. 

  • Siri just said that one British pound is equal to RM5.65. 
  • So 100k pounds = RM565,000, 1m pounds = RM5.65 million etc.

Here is a question that is obviously rhetorical : are lawyers fees affected by whether the case is winnable or lose-able? A win adds prestige to the lawyer. Losing a case goes the other way. Also the case is high profile.

The Mat Salleh lawyer will appear for a few days only.

Why the need for a Mat Salleh lawyer? How does this appear politically and from the public perspective? The Bar Council should say something. This is the 21st century. Not the 19th century. Malaysia is no more a British colony. There must be other Made in Malaysia lawyers who are cleverer who can argue the appeal.

This case is no different from a curi ayam case in the kampong.  There was the thief who has been caught, there was opportunity, there was motive, tons of evidence have been recovered and presented in court. What is so complicated?

Two courts and FOUR judges have found Najib guilty. The decisions against Najib have been unanimous. There were no dissenting opinions among the judges.

Obviously the whole defense strategy was a mistake. Najib has been found guilty TWICE already. I have been saying this since this trial began. Najib basically admitted to everything. His defense was “I dont know”. 

“I dont know” cannot be a defense. Just like ignorance of the law is not a defense. Ignorance of the crime is certainly also not a defense. But Najib’s defense strategy admitted to the evidence presented. 

Q: ‘The money was found in your personal bank account?’ 
A: Yes it was but I did not know. I am not a lawyer but I did study some law. In the trial (the first case) the lawyers argue the facts of the case.

The witness will say the snake he saw under the coconut tree was white in colour. That is supposed to be a fact. The defense lawyer will start to create doubt about this fact. He will say no the snake was not white, it was black. Because it was about 8pm and there was a full moon that night. So the snake appeared shining white. It was actually a shiny black snake and its name was Pambu – a personal friend of the lawyer (joking only). Things like that. To create doubt about the facts of the case.

In an appeals court the lawyers do not argue the facts of the case anymore. They argue over points of law with reference to the decision of the trial judge.   

For example the trial judge sentenced the policeman to death for the murder of the Mongolian woman. All the facts of the case had been presented during the trial. The accused even admitted to the facts of the case. 

In an appeal, they cannot argue the facts of the case anymore. They could (or should) question the trial judge’s failure to determine the motive for the murder (as an example). According to the law motive is critical especially for murder cases. Why did the policeman kill a Mongolian woman? What was the motive? What personal grudge did the policeman have to kill someone he had never met before in his life?  Policemen are trained to obey orders. Did the trial judge fully determine the motive for the murder?

It may not affect the guilty verdict but it could deter from a death sentence. Maybe a life sentence or a term sentence?

So lets see what points of law the Mat Salleh lawyer will argue in front of the Federal Court.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse to commit crime. 

Ignorance of a crime does not absolve guilt. 

Possession of stolen assets is a crime.

Stealing is a crime.

http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/

.