High Court to hear application for revision of sentence after determining mental state of man found guilty of insulting Islam, Prophet Muhammad
Alister (right) is escorted by a Prisons Department personnel in court. — Photo by Chimon Upon
KUCHING: The High Court here yesterday ordered Alister Cogia, who was sentenced to 10 years’ jail and fined RM50,000 for insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad, to undergo one month of mental observation at Sentosa Hospital.
High Court Judge Azahari Kamal Ramli also fixed April 16 as the next hearing date for the application of revision of the administration of the case by the Sessions Court.
The 22-year-old had pleaded guilty to 10 charges under Section 298A of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 while unrepresented.
Alister is now represented by Francis Teron, See Chee How, Desmond Kho, Jeffery Mok, and Chai Pei Chen.
DPP Musli Hamid, DPP Isa Hassim, and DPP Hayda Abu Hasan appeared for the prosecution, while Advocates Association of Sarawak member and counsel Orlando Chua appeared as amicus curiae (friend of the court).
Explaining the application for criminal revision, Francis informed the High Court that it is their application that Alister be transferred to the Sentosa Hospital for observation and that the medical director be directed to produce a medical certificate on his mental condition in accordance with Section 343 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Francis also said it is their contention that the proceedings in the lower court have shown irregularities in the conviction and sentence of the accused person, hence occasioned failure of justice.
Musli said the prosecution did not object to the application for Alister to be transferred to Sentosa Hospital for observation, and suggested the other
matters referred to the court for revision may be determined at the next date, depending on the outcome of the medical observation.
When met, See said the application also sought to review whether sentencing by the Sessions Court was appropriate because one has to look at the notes of proceedings should there be certain pertinent issues that need to be ligated upon, otherwise there would be a failure of justice.
He explained that the High Court would decide if there was anything wrong in the applicant’s conviction and sentencing by the Sessions Court, apart from deciding whether Alister is mentally unfit.
The application for revision was filed with the statutory declaration made by Alister’s mother Alen Rijod and his uncle Waddle Rumen.
Alen had claimed her son was mentally unsound and that the family was not given a chance to meet with Alister while he was under remand, nor told he would appear in court on Friday.