########################################################
'Serdang cat killer' may not be prosecuted due to red tape
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011 12:36:00
CAUGHT: The video clip of the incident
THE Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) may not be able to prosecute 'Serdang cat killer' Chow Xiao Wei, 21.
The decision to bring her to justice is being hampered by the lack of legal support as the process involves going through multiple governmental agencies.
DVS director-general Datuk Dr Abdul Aziz Jamaluddin said one of the delays in prosecuting Chow, who had admitted publicly for torturing three kittens with an umbrella and stomping them to death in March, was due to the authenticity of the video.
"This is the role of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) as they probably have to develop protocols for video authentication that is accepted under general multimedia laws. We have submitted the video to them.
"Subsequently, the DVS, with advice from the Attorney-General's (AG) Chambers, will open the case for further investigations."
However, Dr Abdul Aziz said an investigation methodology could not be determined.
"This is because the Animals Act 1953 does not have the provision for a video recording to be used as court evidence. The government should develop an effective Act to prosecute perpetrators for any offence based on video evidence."
However, several lawyers said there was no need for DVS to limit themselves to the Animals Act 1953 as there were other avenues for the department to bring Chow to face justice (see below).
Asked on the status of the amendment of the Act, which was called for by various animal rights groups, Dr Abdul Aziz said the AG's Chambers was doing their best to finalise changes recommended by DVS and the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Ministry.
"The next stage will be the inclusion of provision for prosecution of cases based on video evidence."
Upon checking with MCMC, The Malay Mail learnt the video is not in their possession and instead with CyberSecurity Malaysia. However, CyberSecurity Malaysia declined to comment.
Currently, animal abusers found guilty under the Act only face a maximum fine of RM200 and a threat of six months jail.
Animal activists have asked for the fine to be increased to RM50,000 so as to serve as a proper deterrent.
Prosecute cat killer under Evidence Act, say lawyers
SEVERAL lawyers told The Malay Mail there are other avenues for the department to bring the cat killer to justice.Senior criminal lawyer Salim Bashir said, even if the Animals Act 1953 did not have the provisions for video evidence to be submitted in court, the Evidence Act 1950 did.
"As such, the Serdang cat killer can be prosecuted under this Act. They could also bring in a charge through the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission using Section 90(a) of the Evidence Act 1950.
"If the conditions in the Section are satisfied, this could overwrite the Animals Act 1950."
Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Shafee Abdullah said it was not entirely correct to put the blame on the Animals Act 1953 for not having a provision for video evidence in court.
"The Animals Act 1953 governs matters of substance, including offences, created to protect animals. It does not wholly cover procedure and evidential matters. Similarly, the Penal Code provides for offences of cruelty against animals.
"All the offence-creating statutes must use the Evidence Act 1950 for evidence admissibility purposes as it is a statute of general application. The Evidence Act covers evidence by video or Internet provided preconditions of admissibility are met."
Shafee said the Animals Act could be blamed in this matter as the Evidence Act governed presentation of all evidence in any offence.
Lawyer Datuk Jahabardeen Mohamed Yunoos said the video of the cat abuse was not critical.
"If the authority is serious about charging the cat killer in court, then go ahead. The authentication of the video has to be done by any certified forensic department such as the police.
"The video in this case is relevant but not critical as the abuser has admitted to the offence she had committed. There are also other evidence such as news reports written based on the public apology she made and the journalists who were present during the Press conference."
Jahabardeen said the level of animal rights consciousness in this country was extremely low.
"It is embarrassing that animal abusers found guilty under the Animals Act 1953 only face a maximum fine of RM200 and a threat of six months jail. Furthermore, the provisions under Sections 428 and 429 of the Penal Code is highly disappointing in terms of animal's life as it is tied to economic value."
############################################################
2) Red tape is 1 of few problem that really baffle us now-days, but there are also certain things that we normally tend to forget, which also attribute to red tape - there was too much technicality interpretation of law which caused its defeat the real purpose of law, which is about being just.
3) In this case, due to red tape the "Serdang cat killer" Chow Xiao Wei could walk away free by just admitting her offence. If that the case, I could do the same thing - by killing somebody, latter admit it publicly, then walk away free. Wow! how liberal was our law is, even a criminal could escape punishment by just admitting it.
5) At least lawyer Datuk Seri Shafee Abdullah could see the provision of evident act 1950 which could be used to supersede the provision of animal act 1953. Unfortunately this idiot lawyer Datuk Jahabardeen Mohamad Yunoos failed to see this, since it just a cat - so nothing important at all.
6) Cat still a living things, by undermine living things means inhuman, as human who blessed with brain, one should be able to THINK. Probably being a lawyer, one should be heartless, inhuman and without common sense since the profession require them to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment