Monday, August 3, 2009

One DPP's Point of View


Following my post on Revisiting The Past, a good friend of mine who is a senior by rank and a DPP, emailed me the following comments. I thought I'd share it here with you all...

"There are many things that can be discussed here but I just would like to highlight one point. By the time the police bring a case over to the AG Chambers, it has been investigated. Yes, maybe they should have advice the police to have the appliance / instrument gazetted etc but police force uses new tools everyday. Unless a DPP is posted at Bukit Aman and have everything requiring his approval before being put into operation, then it would be a folly to think that the AG Chambers could keep track of what another department would or intend to do.

Once investigated, (i.e. IP completed) no one could change the clock backwards. The system in Malaysia is that the Prosecution does not get to see what the investigation do until it is too late. The US system is slightly different as District Attorneys get to go on the ground and be involved in the investigation and gathering of evidence.

If, apart from the instrument which was not gazetted, the Prosecuting Officer (who is from the Traffic Contingent in Edmund Bon’s case and not a DPP) has succeeded in proving every other ingredient of the offence, I am proud of them because they did what justice demanded of them i.e. bringing to the attention of the court what the evidence were. They have done justice despite losing the case because of a (fatal) technicality.

For us, winning or losing is secondary to doing justice. Once we have done our best and justice (as per the circumstances) is done, our conscience is clear.

I understand it may be hard for some people (apart from DPPs) to understand this and rest assured, if we believe that justice has been done, we curse no one. Allah be our witness."

Blog adjourned.

Reactions:

0 obiter dictum: