PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has contended that the Court of Appeal judges had misdirected themselves in deciding that the ‘Male Y’ DNA produced before the court in his sodomy trial was his.
This was among the 35 grounds which the Opposition Leader stated in his petition of appeal against his five-year jail sentence for sodomy, meted out by the Court of Appeal on March 7.
The appeal, for his conviction and sentence to be set aside, was filed at the Federal Court registrar’s office by counsel Zaleha Al-Hayat, at 1.45pm; about an hour before the deadline for appeal ended yesterday.
Anwar, 67, said there were doubts in the evidence given by two government chemists, Dr Seah Lay Hong and Nor Aidora Saedon.
The PKR adviser added the three appellate court judges, headed by Justice Balia Yusof Wahi, had also misdirected themselves in not deciding that the allegations of sodomy by his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, were fabricated.
He said this could be noted in Mohd Saiful’s delay in lodging a police report and that there was “no conclusive evidence” of penetration.
Anwar was charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful, then 23, at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
He said the judges failed to observe the evidence of Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid, who first examined Mohd Saiful, which raised suspicion on the complainant’s credibility.
Anwar raised the break in the chain of evidence which was not taken into account at the Appeals Court when his request to recall the investigating officer of the case Supt Jude Blacious Pereira, known as Jude, was dismissed.
He said the judges were biased and prejudiced against him during the hearing of the prosecution’s appeal against his acquittal when they implied that his defence team had delayed proceedings.
He said the judges misdirected themselves when they did not appreciate the evidence of the two government chemists accordingly.
Besides that, he said the judges were misdirected when it concluded that defence experts Prof Dr David Lawrence Wells and Dr Brian McDonald were not competent witnesses.
The Opposition Leader further claimed the judges were misdirected in making adverse comments on his defence from the dock.
In the 85-page written judgment, the Court of Appeal had ruled that his defence in making a statement from the dock was a mere denial.