Fadley Faisal

The High Court yesterday ruled that the defence party will have to answer to the prosecution’s case on a portion of the charges, while having the right to remain silent on the remaining charges, in the trial against Ramzidah binti Pehin Datu Kesuma Diraja Colonel (Rtd) Haji Abdul Rahman and Haji Nabil Daraina bin Pehin Udana Khatib Dato Paduka Seri Setia Ustaz Haji Awang Badaruddin.

Simon Farrell, QC submitted that Ramzidah has no case to answer for the charge of criminal breach of trust over BND35,000 cash paid by a judgement debtor to the Bankruptcy Unit, between April to May 2017.

For Haji Nabil Daraina, Farrell submitted that there was no case to answer for any of the money laundering charges under Section 3 of the Criminal Asset Recovery Order, because he had no knowledge that the property laundered was from the crime allegedly committed by Ramzidah.

Justice Gareth John Lugar-Mawson agreed with Jonathan Caplan, QC that the law does not require the prosecution to prove that Haji Nabil Daraina had in fact believed or suspected that the money was from the proceeds of crime. The test is whether a reasonable person, aware of the information available to the defendant, would have believed or suspected.

The court ruled that both defendants have a case to answer for those charges, and are required by law to enter their defence and to produce their evidence.

Through their defence counsel, both defendants submitted that there is no case to answer for the offences under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for having in possession property which were disproportionate to their present and past emoluments, for a number of reasons.

Farrell applied for the charges to be stayed. The trial judge was persuaded by the arguments submitted by the defence.

He highlighted that the law requires the defendants to answer to the charges of unexplained wealth, and they have no right to remain silent. On the other hand, they have a right to remain silent for the remaining offences of criminal breach of trust and money laundering.

If the trial was to proceed for the offence of unexplained wealth, the defendants would no longer have those rights, and this would be unjust.

Justice Lugar-Mawson found that the integrity of the criminal justice system would be undermined if he did not accede to the application for stay. He exercised his inherent powers to stay the proceedings, and did not make any ruling for the no case to answer submission in relation to the offences of unexplained wealth.

The trial will proceed against Ramzidah on all the charges under criminal breach of trust, and against both defendants for the offences of money laundering. The defence asked to begin their case today, and was adjourned to continue today, by Justice Lugar-Mawson.

Caplan and Deputy Public Prosecutors Hajah Suhana binti Haji Sudin, Hajah Suriana binti Haji Radin, Dayangku Didi-Nuraza binti Pengiran Haji Abdul Latiff and Muhammad Qamarul Affyian bin Abdul Rahman appeared for the Public Prosecutor. Farrell and Sheikh Noordin Sheikh Mohammad represented the defendants.