PUTRAJAYA: A three-member Court of Appeal panel which is presiding over an appeal in connection with a coroner’s court open verdict decision in the inquest into the death of Teoh Beng Hock will visit the site where he was said to have fallen at the Plaza Masalam.
The site is the former location of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC).
Datuk Mohammad Ariff Md Yusof, who is chairing the panel, directed parties in the appeal to make an arrangement for them to go to the site to inspect the window of the building from which the DAP political aide (Teoh) was said to have fallen.
A date will be fixed for that purpose before March 28.
The other two judges who were also presiding on the panel were Datuk Mah Weng Kwai and Datuk Hamid Sultan Abu Backer.
“It is unprecedented,” said lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, who is representing Teoh’s brother, Meng Kee, adding that this would be the first time for Court of Appeal judges to be visiting a place of incident in an inquest.
During the inquest, coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas visited the place twice and the Royal Commission of Inquiry panel which was also set up to investigate the cause of Teoh’s death, visited it once.
Earlier yesterday, the Court of Appeal panel heard the appeal brought by Meng Kee and subsequently, fixed March 28 to resume its hearing.
In today’s proceeding, Gobind submitted on the standard of proof that a coroner’s court should apply upon, when making a finding of homicide in an inquest.
He said the coroner’s court which had heard the inquest into Teoh’s death was wrong in applying the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test which imposed a strict or heavier burden on the deceased’s family to prove their theory that the death was homicide, at the inquest.
Gobind said the appropriate test to be applied by the coroner’s court was the test of balance of probabilities which only required evidence which was probable when making a finding at the end of the inquest.
He said inquest was a finding of facts and it did not have to be as strict as a criminal proceeding, which was based on the test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as at the end of the criminal trial, punishment could be imposed.
Gobind said an inquest was not a criminal or civil proceeding but a quasi-criminal proceeding and therefore, a lower burden of proof should apply.
Meanwhile, Hamid Sultan pointed out that Section 328 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not impose specifically, any standard of proof. Therefore, he said, it could not be a test of beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities test but it must be a lower standard such as ‘reasonable suspicion’.
On Jan 5, 2010, the coroner returned an open verdict that Teoh’s death was not due to suicide or homicide and found no third party involvement either, in the death.
On July 21, the following year, a Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by Federal Court Judge Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen (now retired) established Teoh’s death as suicide.
Meng Kee subsequently, filed an application under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the High Court on Sept 30, 2011 to have the coroner’s decision reviewed.
The High Court in Shah Alam rejected Meng Kee’s review application on Dec 1, 2011.
On Feb 2, last year, Meng Kee obtained leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against the decision of the High Court.
Outside the court, Gobind said the Court of Appeal’s decision in this appeal would have a great impact on how future inquests would be conducted. — Bernama