Monday, 9 January 2012

NOT GUILTY!! Judge Zabidin ACQUITS Anwar Ibrahim of Sodomy Charges

Dato' Mohamad Zabidin Bin Mohd Diah,DSDK, SMP, SDK
High Court Judge Kuala Lumpur (Criminal 5)
(Appointed High Court Judge on 28 July 2006)


"...The court does not exclude the possibility the (DNA) samples were compromised.

Therefore the accused is ACQUITTED...."

-High Court Judge Dato' Mohamad Zabidin Bin Mohd Diah
Read here for more and HERE and HERE

The High Court today acquitted Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of a charge of sodomising his former male aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Judge Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah ruled that the prosecution had NOT DONE ENOUGH to prove Anwar had committed sodomy against Saiful.

After going through the evidence, I cannot be 100 percent certain that the evidence could have been compromised.

Hence, the court is reluctant to convict on such corrobaration of evidence from SP1 Saiful.

The court does not exclude the possibility the (DNA) samples were compromised. Therefore the accused is acquitted.”
he ruled to shouts of joy from Anwar’s supporters and family.

Anwar, a former deputy prime minister was charged with sodomising Saiful at the Desa Damansara condominium between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008. He had been similarly indicted of sodomy over a decade ago and was found guilty. He spent six years in jail before being exonerated.

Anwar's wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail cried and hugged her elated husband.

In an immediate reaction, Anwar thanked his lawyers.

"I'm finally vindicated after the smearing of my character. I'm thankful to Wan Azizah and the team of lawyers led by Karpal Singh."

He also thanked the support of Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

"We want to continue on the reform agenda, fighting corruption, and freedom of the press."

1 comment:

LaM said...

I can't be 100% certain, the DNA was not compromised. Is such finding of the Judge correct? No wonder the Umno prosecutors are filing an appeal.

100% certain is near certainty whereas 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' does not need 100% certainty. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not 100%.

If the Judge had said the defence expert witnessses has cast reasonble doubts about the integrity of the DNA samples, and that ther are evidences it had been compromised then that would have been a more sound judgement.

I think the prosecution will harp that the Judge misdirected himself on the standard of proof that is required of the prosecution. 100% certain? This is the first time I'm hearing a Judge saying this. Or was it a deliberate attempt to leave a gaping hole in his judgement for the prosecution to attack.