Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Hindraf Uthayakumar petitions against Sessions court decision
Wednesday January 30, 2008
Hindraf adviser petitions against decision
KUALA LUMPUR: Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) legal adviser P. Uthayakumar has filed a petition to appeal against the Sessions Court’s decision to reject his preliminary objection that his sedition charge was defective.
He stated in the petition yesterday that he was not satisfied with the decision given by judge Sabariah Othman on Dec 11 last year.
The judge had ruled that the absence of his signature in an alleged seditious letter did not make the charge defective and rejected the objection raised by his counsel under Section 173 (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the petition, Uthayakumar said the judge had erred when she dismissed the objection.
He said the judge made a mistake when she decided that the letter did not have to be signed merely because it was posted from a website.
Among others, he contended that the judge was wrong when she decided that it would not make the charge unclear to enable the accused to understand and answer to the charge.
He filed the petition at the Sessions Court (criminal) registry through his lawyers.
On Dec 11, Uthayakumar was produced in a Sessions Court here to face a charge of publishing a seditious letter on a website at Menara Mutiara Bangsar between Nov 15 and Dec 8.
The lawyer, however, pleaded not guilty to publishing the alleged letter.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/30/courts/20166510&sec=courts
Hindraf adviser petitions against decision
KUALA LUMPUR: Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) legal adviser P. Uthayakumar has filed a petition to appeal against the Sessions Court’s decision to reject his preliminary objection that his sedition charge was defective.
He stated in the petition yesterday that he was not satisfied with the decision given by judge Sabariah Othman on Dec 11 last year.
The judge had ruled that the absence of his signature in an alleged seditious letter did not make the charge defective and rejected the objection raised by his counsel under Section 173 (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the petition, Uthayakumar said the judge had erred when she dismissed the objection.
He said the judge made a mistake when she decided that the letter did not have to be signed merely because it was posted from a website.
Among others, he contended that the judge was wrong when she decided that it would not make the charge unclear to enable the accused to understand and answer to the charge.
He filed the petition at the Sessions Court (criminal) registry through his lawyers.
On Dec 11, Uthayakumar was produced in a Sessions Court here to face a charge of publishing a seditious letter on a website at Menara Mutiara Bangsar between Nov 15 and Dec 8.
The lawyer, however, pleaded not guilty to publishing the alleged letter.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/30/courts/20166510&sec=courts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment