Apabila Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa terdapat prima facie kes dan arahkan OKT membela diri, maka terdapat 3 pilihan, (1) Berdiam diri (2) memberikan keterangan secara bersumpah (3) memberikan keterangan daripada dock tertuduh.
Jika memilih memberikan keterangan pembelaan daripada kandang tertuduh seperti pernah berlaku dalam kes Anwar Ibrahim (kes lain sebut pun anda tak kenal), maka pihak pendakwaan tidak mempunyai hak untuk soal balas kepada keterangan tersebut. Oleh kerana itu, nilaian keterangan agak rendah tetapi itu tidak menjadikan ia tidak dipertimbangkan. Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Cheah Chong Tatt vs PP [2020] menyatakan:
"Kami tidak mendapati apa-apa salah arahan atau kekhilafan di sisi undang-undang atau fakta oleh Hakim bicara dalam menimbangkan pembelaan Perayu Pertama dan Perayu Kedua tersebut dan menolaknya.."
YAA Tan Sri Zulkefli Makinuddin dalam kes PP v. Mohd Amin Mohd Razali & Ors [2002] menyatakan bahawa:
"The position in law is that the right of an accused person to make unsworn statement from the dock is a substantive right. However we must bear in mind that statement from the dock is not sworn evidence, which can be the subject of crossexamination. Not so much weight can be given to what the accused said in the dock when compared to what the accused would give under sworn evidence. This is so because when a man gives evidence one can cross-examine him and test his evidence and generally have a better opportunity of assessing him. Nevertheless the law is very clear that the court cannot outright reject such evidence. The court must consider it and give it such weight for what it is worth and think fit having regard to the evidence adduced as a whole before the court."
Rujuk juga - Azahan Mohd Aminallah v. PP [2004]
Yang
0 komen:
Dah baca sila bagi sepatah kata..