PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court here today upheld the conviction and death sentence of two men for the murder of a businessman, eight years ago.
Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Shariff, leading a five-member panel, said the Federal Court found no valid reason to disturb the finding of facts of the High Court judge, which had found Ong Teng For and Chew Ah Lan @ Chew Kai Thong, guilty of murder.
“The trial judge (High Court judge) had considered all of the evidence adduced at the trial, evaluated the relevant circumstances and assessed the credibility of the witnesses, including the finding that the evidence of both the appellants (Ong and Chew) were to be disbelieved before arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the duo had failed to raise reasonable doubt to the charge,” said Md Raus.
The panel, also comprising Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Federal Court judges Datuk Ahmad Maarop, Datin Paduka Zaleha Zahari and Datuk Sulong Matjeraie, unanimously dismissed the duo’s appeal against conviction and death sentence.
Ong, 51, a fisherman, and Chew, 67, a seafood businessman, were convicted and sentenced to death by the Taiping High Court on Dec 15, 2009 for murdering Tan Ah Ching, 42, who owned a fish and cockles farm, at Kuala Sanggar, Selinsing in Semanggol, Perak at 5.30pm on April 15, 2004.
On July 4, last year, the Court of Appeal dismissed the duo’s appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.
In a 27-page judgment, Md Raus said the Federal Court dismissed a preliminary issue raised by the appellants’ lawyers on the failure of the High Court judge to recuse himself from presiding over the trial after Ong and Chew were ordered to enter their defence.
“The Federal Court found that there was no likelihood of bias, nor the accused being deprived a fair trial, occasioning a miscarriage of justice when the trial judge did not recuse himself after disclosure of defence counsel that the accused was changing his line of defence.”
Md Raus said the Federal Court was of the view that the disclosure made by the defence did not amount to a situation whereby, the accused was telling the judge that he would be lying in his defence.
On the second preliminary issue concerning the locus standi of a Myanmar interpreter who interpreted the evidence of a prosecution principal witness who was an illegal immigrant from Myanmar, he said the interpreter’s locus standi was not an issue as he was an officer of the court and appointed by the Federal Court Registry.
The evidence of the principal prosecution witness, Sonia a/l Uchor, who was then working for the deceased in the latter’s fish farm, disclosed that the appellants arrived in a speedboat and subsequently, left the boat alongside the deceased’s speedboat.
Sonia gave evidence that he saw the deceased talking to the appellants in an angry tone before arming himself with a piece of wood.
He testified that he then saw Chew taking out a pistol which he aimed at the deceased before handing the firearm to Ong.
Sonia gave evidence that the deceased retreated but Ong followed him (the deceased) and fired five shots in his direction.
He testified that the duo then left the scene in their speedboat but shortly later, returned to the place where Ong had fired the shots.
Ong was represented by lawyer Karpal Singh and Sangeet Kaur Deo while Chew was represented by Hisyam Teh Poh Teik. K. Mangai was deputy public prosecutor.
— Bernama
