No, 6B, Jalan Abdullah

Off Jalan Bangsar,

59000 Kuala Lumpur

Media Statement 18/9/2012

P. Uthaya’s Sedition trial: Lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon replied to DPPs’ Prolix Cross Examination by Accused.

In reply to Deputy Public Prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin’s sumissions that P. Uthayakumar’s Cross Examination is Prolix (lengthy), Senior lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon today appeared for P. Uthayakumar before K.L Sessions Court Judge Ahmad Zamzani bin Mohd Zain.

Among the salient points raised by Manjeet is P. Uthayakumar’s constitutional right to a complete trial to defend himself. In a Cross Examination, Manjeet submitted three rights of the accused:-

1. Right to present the defence case on relevant issues.

2. Right to challenge all the Prosecution case

3. Right to test credibility of Prosecution Witnesses.

Manjeet submitted that the Accused has a right to say the truth about the nine (9) different issues (concerning the Malaysian Indian poor) as contained in his alleged letter to the then British Prime Minister The Rt Hon Gordon Brown M.P dated 15/11/07. The truth is a defence in the Sedition Act that is open and available to the Accused in his Cross Examination.

Manjeet also pointed out the procedural irregularity which had vitiated this trial in that the trial commenced on 13/1/2010 where P. Uthayakumar was charged on 11/12/07 for Sedition committed between 15/11/07 to 8/12/07 at Menara Mutiara Bangsar, K.L. However on 4/6/12, some two years later in the middle of the trial the Prosecution had amended the charge and had moved the happening of the facts from K.L to Seremban, a different town and state. So what happens to the accused right to an Alibi Notice by virtue of Section 402 of the Criminal Procedure Code to enable inspection and which has to be served 10 days before the trial. “Was it procedurally correct may well Render or vitiate the trial” said Manjeet.

In reply to the DPPs’ argument on Uthayakumar’s Prolix Submissions, Manjeet replied that Uthayakumar is trying to establish evidence and urged the Court to allow him to completely exhaust all his defence by virtue of Sections 5 to 16 of the Evidence Act. And never through arbitrarily stopping Uthayakumar’s Cross Examination.

The Judge held that he had inherent powers to give any directions deemed fit. The Judge held that he does not deny the Accused right to Cross Examine but it must be confined to relevant facts of the case and wants the case not to be dragged but completed by December 2012!

The continued hearing is fixed from 24^th to 26^th September 2012.

…………………………

S. Jayathas

Information Chief

Hindraf

012-6362287

Note : Uthayakumar was in ISA detention for 1 ½ years thereafter and the was a stay of proceedings Order by the High Court for about one (1) year pending appeal to the Court of Appeal that this Sedition Act is ultra vires the Federal Constitution.