Intercepted call recordings erased if no further requests made – cop

0

KOTA KINABALU: A special branch police officer testified in the High Court here yesterday that the recordings of intercepted calls would automatically be erased after a period of time if there are no further requests made by applicant officers.

A supervising officer of the communication interception division based at the Bukit Aman special branch, ASP Muhammad Fauzarri Jaidin, told Justice Stephen Chung that his unit is in possession of the intercepted communication recording tapes, which are stored in a computer, and that it would automatically be erased if no further requests are made by the relevant officers.

The Philippines government assigned counsel, Datuk N. Sivananthan asked the 89th witness under cross examination: “I put it to you that Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) do not allow these recordings to be erased since it is evidence to be produced in court?”

Witness: “I disagree”.

Sivananthan: “If the recordings were erased, then the standard of the intercepted calls cannot be independently verified?”

Witness: “The recordings were not intentionally erased. But this is how the operation goes. If there is no application made by the relevant officers, then no transcript of the intercepted calls would be given.”

To a suggestion by Sivananthan, the witness disagreed that the special branch had a facility to recognize voice recordings.

“My unit does not have a voice recognition software, maybe other units have,” the witness said to affirm that his unit had no such software to assist them in doing their work.

Sivananthan: “You said that you saw ASP Wan Kamal (one of the coordinating officers, who applied for the intercepted calls on several targets) gave transcripts of the intercepted calls to an investigating officer Superintendent Shahrul Ali?”

Witness: “As far as I can recall, the transcripts that were handed over were not the same as the transcripts produced in this court. What I meant is that the details and format on the transcripts were the same but not as the transcripts produced in court which had a de-classification stamp.”

Sivananthan: “How can there be a de-classification stamp under Section 2C of the Official Secrets Act 1972 dated February 20, 2014, when you said you saw these transcripts in 2013?”

Witness: Those trnascripts held by ASP Wan Kamal had the stamp dated some time in 2013, which I believe was the de-classification procedure undertaken by ASP Wan Kamal.”

Sivananthan: “So, those transcripts you saw were not the same as these transcripts (referring to intercepted call transcripts tentatively marked as 1D470 to ID480) since it had a different stamp?”

Witness: “The details were all the same except for the stamp, which I believed were in ASP Wan Kamal’s copies.”

To another question by Sivananthan, the witness testified that he had perused all the documents to check on its accuracy.

Sivananthan: “Did you compare with your own set to ensure its accuracy?”

Witness: “No, because ASP Wan Kamal told me that the intercepted call transcripts, which he held were what I had given to him.”

Sivananthan: “Are you saying that the full set of transcripts ID470-1D480 were given to ASP Wan Kamal by you?”

Witness: It was different because these transcripts ID470–ID480, I believed, were given to Superintendent Anuar Ahmad (one of the prosecution’s witness, who applied for authorisation to carry out intercepted communication), while the transcripts held by ASP Wan Kamal were his own copies as an applicant officer.

The trial is in respect of 29 men and a woman, including a nephew of the late self-styled Sulu Sultanate III, Datu Jamalul Kiram, who were arrested for allegedly committing terrorism acts at several places in Lahad Datu, Semporna, Kunak and Sandakan between February 12 and April 10, 2013.

If found guilty, the accused persons would be liable to the mandatory death sentence while the rest face a life term imprisonment and a fine.

The trial, conducted in a hall at the Kepayan prisons doubling as an open court, was held under tight security by the police and prison personnel and will continue today.

Sivananthan was assisted by counsels, James Tsai, Stella Simon, Zakaria Ahmad, Zaleha Mohd Yusof Pan, Majnah Abdillah and Teressa Sirri. Other counsels involved were Kamarudin Mohmad Chinki, Ram Singh, Korventt Wheezar E. Jomiji, and Abdul Ghani Zelika

The prosecutors involved were Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Datuk Abdul Wahab Mohamed, Ishak Mad Yusoff, Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, Cheng Heng Kher and Anati Kisahi.