KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here yesterday denied Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim access to the clinical notes taken by Kuala Lumpur Hospital specialists when examining the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Justice Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah rejected Anwar’s application for an order to compel the prosecution to supply the clinical notes taken by three specialists during Mohd Saiful’s three-hour medical examination at the hospital on the night of June 28, 2008.
The defence applied for the notes after general surgeon Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim referred to them during his testimony, in which the defence had a hunch that the notes if produced were liable to contradict Dr Mohd Razali’s oral evidence.
Dr Mohd Razali is the second prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Anwar, who is charged with sodomising Saiful, 25, at Unit 11-5-1 of Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
In his judgment, Justice Mohamad Zabidin ruled that the defence had failed to meet the legal requirement necessary for the court to order the prosecution to supply them with the notes.
He said he was of the view that the notes were for the purpose of corroboration or to refresh the memory of the witness and that it was for the prosecution to decide whether they want to use the notes.
The judge said that nobody, including the court, could insist on the prosecution using the notes to corroborate the oral testimony of Dr Mohd Razali if they did not wish to do so.
“If the prosecution chose not to use it, neither the defence nor the court could compel them to do so or to supply it to the defence,” he said.
Justice Mohamad Zabidin also dismissed Anwar’s application to expunge the full medical report dated July 13, 2008, which was attached with a laboratory number of the chemist report.
The defence wants to expunge the full report on the grounds that the laboratory number of Mohd Saiful’s toxicology report was not stated in the full report.
Also, the toxicology report had not been served to the defence.
Mohamad Zabidin in his judgment said the toxicology report was now stapled together with the chemist report and it was never marked as exhibit.
He said it was the stand of the prosecution that they never intended to tender it as exhibit and that was the reason it was never served on the defence. — Bernama