TAG 111

[Hakim Paul telah merosakkan perjalanan keadilan di Malaysia kerana asyik menutup ruang untuk pembelaan melalui keputusan 'tidak relevan'nya setiap kali pihak peguambela menghampiri kejayaan. Seorang hakim yang adil harus menimbangkan kesemua kemungkinan - bukannya asyik menutup saluran. Lagipun beban sebenar dalam perbicaraan adalah kepada si pendakwa - bukannya kepada si tertuduh. Saksi penting yang menyebabkan Anwar terhukum sudah jelas mencemarkan kredibiliti dirinya sendiri dengan pengakuan sanggup berbuat apa saja demi arahan pihak yang lebih berkuasa yang menjaganya sekian lama. Siapa lagi jika tidak Mahathir tentunya.
- Editor]

Terjemahan: SPAR-09-001

Augustine Paul: Hakim Berhati Binatang

(Augustine Paul: A monster of a judge)

Oleh: Suan

Seandainya ada di antara kita yang telah terlupa, ini akan mengingatkan kita kepada seorang hakim yang paling berat sebelah dan korup di dalam sejarah perundangan Malaysia, hakim berhati binatang yang telah menjual maruah dirinya kepada iblis dan negara kepada kezaliman semata-mata untuk kepentingan kerjayanya.

Hakim tersebut tidak lain dan tidak bukan adalah Augustine Paul yang telah mensabitkan kesalahan Dato' Seri Anwar dengan hukuman 6 tahun penjara berdasarkan bukti-bukti yang sangat lemah pernah dikemukakan di dalam mahkamah. Satu ciri unggul di dalam perbicaraannya adalah laungan perkataan 'tak relevan' yang telah membantutkan segala bukti yang dipersembahkan oleh pihak peguambela yang dirasakan akan dapat menggoncangkan kedudukan kes pihak pendakwa. Beliau telah mengenepikan permohonan untuk mengemukakan bukti dari pita rakaman di dalam mahkamah. Beliau tidak membenarkan 10 orang saksi pihak peguambela dari memberi keterangan dengan alasan tidak relevan. Jika ini bukannya satu keadaan pra-penghakiman, apa pula agaknya? Sama ada bukti itu relevan atau tidak, mahkamah boleh membuat keputusannya selepas mendengar segala keterangan bukti tersebut, bukannya sebelum. Hakim ini tentu sahaja boleh memutuskan pada penghujung sesi bahawa penghakimannya adalah berdasarkan kepada semua bukti yang telah dikemukakan di dalam mahkamah, dan pada masa yang sama tentulah beliau boleh menapis dengan teliti dan membenarkan hanya bukti-bukti yang tidak akan menjejaskan kes pihak pendakwa.

Augustine Paul juga telah menyalahi undang-undang dengan menghalang pasukan peguambela dari mempersembahkan pembelaan yang baik dan berkesan. Pada awal perbicaraan, beliau telah tidak membenarkan alasan konspirasi politik digunakan dengan mengatakan bahawa itu hanyalah satu rekaan. Siapakah beliau untuk menghukum sebelum mendengar bukti-bukti yang ingin disampaikan? Adakah beliau cuba untuk melindungi tuannya? Konspirasi politik yang dikatakan itu adalah sesuatu yang munasabah memandangkan yang tertuduh adalah seorang ahli politik yang telah dijatuhkan dengan cara yang hina oleh PM, namun sidurjana ini dengan lancangnya telah mengenepikan strategi pembelaan yang paling penting dan membuang prinsip-prinsip perundangan bagi memastikan yang tertuduh itu bersalah. Walaupun beliau membenarkan konspirasi polis tetapi ternyata ini juga ditolak apabila bukti-bukti yang dikemukakan telah menyerlahkan kebenaran kes peguambela.

Di dalam langkah pra-penghakimannya, hakim penyangak ini telah membenarkan pihak pendakwa untuk meminda pertuduhan di saat-saat akhir kes perbicaraan, menjadikannya lebih mudah untuk disabitkan kesalahan. Cara bagaimana ia dipinda sungguh mengaibkan, di mana melalui pindaan ini pihak pendakwa tidak perlu lagi membuktikan bahawa Anwar telah melakukan kesalahan 'cuba menutupi kesalahannya', yang sebenarnya tidak dapat dibuktikan oleh mereka itu. Sungguh tidak logik dan tidak waras, tetapi hakim penyangak ini telah membenarkannya berlaku. Adalah amat jelas dari awal lagi bahawa Augustine Paul tidak pernah berminat untuk mencari kebenaran tetapi hanya untuk mensabitkan kesalahan kepada yang tertuduh. Mahkamahnya bukan sahaja boleh dipanggil mahkamah kanggaru, bahkan tidak bermaruah langsung. Sebenarnya Augustine Paul telah mengemudikan sebuah sarkas yang sungguh tidak berakhlak.

Tidak memerlukan masa yang panjang untuk menyenaraikan segala penyalahgunaan peraturan undang-undang dan prinsip-prinsip keadilan yang telah dilakukan oleh hakim pariah ini di dalam kes perbicaraan Anwar. Memadailah dengan mengatakan bahawa Augustine Paul adalah hakim berhati binatang yang telah merosakkan keadilan, menjual prinsip dan harga dirinya dan menjual negara ini kepada kezaliman. Semua rakyat Malaysia mesti menyimpan ingatan tentang Augustine Paul dengan sebaik-baiknya dan bersedia untuk meludah ke atas kuburnya apabila tiba masanya.

-Suan-

http://www.geocities.com/seachange_2000/stink.htm

Monster of a Judge

In case we forget, this serves as a reminder of one of the most biased and corrupted judge in Malaysian legal history, a monster of a judge who sold his soul to the devil and the nation into tyranny for the sake of his career.

The judge is of course none other than Augustine Paul who convicted Dato Seri Anwar to 6 years imprisonment on the basis of the most flimsy evidence ever tendered in court. The hallmark of his trial was the cry "IRRELEVANT" which served as the catch-all for any evidence tendered by the defense which appeared to poke holes in the prosecution.

His trial was peppered with many dubious "firsts". He was the first not to reserve seats for international legal observers and not even the local Bar Council. He was not going to do justice and he hoped that it would not be seen too clearly. To help that along he took the unprecedented step of disallowing publication of certain evidence heard in court He was the first to demand that the defense summarise the line of questioning before they could call a witness, thus prejudicing the defense by removing the element of surprise. He was the first to disqualify witnesses before they could testify. He was the first to jail a counsel for tendering a defense. He was not the first puppet judge but he was the first to conduct a trial in such a crude heavy-handed manner leaving no other interpretation possible than a kangaroo court.

From the beginning, Augustine Paul illegally restricted the defense team from putting together a creditable defense. He strenuously disallowed the defense of political conspiracy, saying that it was fanciful. Not for him to listen to submissions before judging on the evidence. He had already pre-judged that there was no political conspiracy in a shameless bid to protect his master? Political conspiracy was altogether plausible given that the defendant was a politician who had fallen from grace with the PM, yet this monster had the audacity to wave aside the most crucial defense strategy and in doing so brushed all principles of jurisprudence aside in his determination to find the defendant guilty. Although he allowed police conspiracy even this was taken away at the end when the weight of evidence threatened to prove the defense's case. In the course of the trial this monster-judge frantically protected his political masters when witnesses began to give evidence pointing to their involvement. He would cut them off brusquely with his all-embracing "irrelevant" ruling and even when evidence embarrassing to his political masters had been heard in court, he prohibited their publication, making a mockery of a "public trial".

He refused to allow a crucial taped evidence to be tendered in court. In a grand finale, he refused to allow 10 defense witnesses to testify on the basis of irrelevance. If this isn't pre-judging, what is? Whether the evidence is relevant or not is for the court to decide AFTER hearing the evidence, not before. This judge could at the end of the day say that his judgement was based on all available evidence tendered to the court but of course he had carefully filtered through and admitted only those which did not destroy the prosecution's case. Along the way, he threatened defense lawyers who put forward too good a defense and even jailed one of them for daring to put forward a sworn affidavit by another lawyer that the Attorney-General had conspired to use Datuk Nalla's life as a bargaining chip to extract false evidence against Anwar. Amazingly, he called this contempt of court, twisting bizarre new meaning into the term.

In a highly prejudicial move this crooked judge allowed the prosecution to amend the charges late in the trial, making it easier to obtain a conviction. The nature of the amendment was scandalous, in effect saying that the prosecution did not have to prove that Anwar committed a crime to convict him for attempting to cover up a "crime" that they could not prove he committed. It was illogical and irrational, but the crooked judge allowed the prosecution whatever leeway they wanted making him almost part of the prosecution team. It was clear from the start that Augustine Paul was not interested in finding out the truth but only in finding the defendant guilty. He ran a kangaroo court which was no more than a crude parody of justice.

It would take far too long to catalogue all the abuses that this judge inflicted on the rule of law and principles of justice in the Anwar trial. Suffice it to say that Augustine Paul was a monster of a judge who subverted justice, sold away his principles and human dignity. He bulldozed away all that was right and true in his frantic determination to convict Anwar. There was virtually no finesse, logic or even a pretence of impartiality in his show trial. In the end he cut a dark, grotesque figure, a sad pathetic pawn manipulated by invisible strings and seen by all as the epitome of the loss of independence of the judiciary