What a "ride"! After six long years of battle, Sam Ke Ting is finally free of charge after the three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled to overturn her conviction for reckless driving that caused the deaths of eight boys who were riding "bisikal lajak" (illegally modified bicycle) in 2017. 

Setting the case aside, one thing that stood out to fellow Malaysian is how the leader of the COA judges, Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail, took notes of the slightest flaws in the prosecutor's logic and questioned him back. This has won over fellow Malaysians' applause for our COA judges' sharp wittiness. 

Here are the moments when Datuk Hadhariah "slayed" in the courtroom:-

Do drivers have to be perfect? 

Datuk Hadhariah first asked the Deputy Public Prosecutor Muhammad Syafiq whether the law allowed riding a "basikal lajak" at 3 am. Syafiq avoided answering the question directly by saying that it is impossible to foresee if there are any "basikal lajak" activities on the road but it has always been unpredictable on the road. Following Syafiq's logic, Hadhariah questioned him if it is necessary for drivers to be driving perfectly in order to avoid all unprecedented accidents. Syafiq replied: "No, but they must be cautious." 

However, Hadhariah is alert that Syafiq has avoided her first question and began asking him again if it is legal to ride a bike at 3 am and Syafiq was lost for words. 

"Even a perfect driver would not be able to avoid any accident in that situation, even if there is a cat or even a turtle with its kids passing by."

Datuk Hadhariah continues to question the prosecutor if a perfectly skilled driver is able to stop his car when a cat or a turtle suddenly appears on the road. She added that the situation is very challenging for anyone to see clearly as " the road was hilly, curvy and dark because the streets lights were covered by trees."

Please answer honestly. It is Bulan Puasa now!

She then asked about the 46th prosecution witness, who was one of the investigating officers in the case and has testified that the police had carried out an operation to bust the "basikal lajak" activities in that area just days before the accident. She asked the 2nd Deputy Public Prosecutor, Tengku Amir Zaki Tengku Abdul Rahman, the reason for such an operation and the prosecutor replied that it is "to safeguard the cyclists' safety, because they endanger themselves as well as the public who drive through the area." She pointed out this reason favours the defence and that the investigating officer's testimonies further prove that "basikal lajak" is an illegal act. She questioned the prosecutor again why would the 46th witness be giving this testimony. The prosecutor says that the witness is just making a general statement. This then sparks Datuk Hadhariah to give him an earful by asking him to answer honestly, especially that now is the month of Ramadhan. 

"We have to be fair."

According to the magistrate's evaluation, the accident was unavoidable "due to the dangerous situation created by the cyclists."  Datuk Hadhariah concluded that "basikal lajak" is indeed an illegal act and urges that being honest and fair is crucial when it comes to justice. She added that Sam should be given a fair judgement despite what she has done until it is proven that she is at fault. 

"We have to be honest here when we're talking about justice. One who was charged is presumed innocent until proven guilty and we are here for justice to prevail, so we have to be fair."

"The only way to avoid the accident was if the car flew over the cyclists."

Following the magistrate's judgement, Datuk Hadhariah said that "the only way to avoid the accident was if the car flew over the cyclists." But this wasn't meant to be a joke but a true reflection of the case. As the number of cyclists involved was not small, but a huge group of 30 to 40 cyclists. 

"Each charge must have one charge, specific charge, one charge only."

Sam was charged with two different offences including reckless driving and dangerous driving. Datuk Hadhariah, however, slams the prosecutor for the "duplicity" as it has violated the provisions of Section 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). 

"Section 163 of the CPC says that each charge must have one charge, specific charge, one charge only. So in this case, if there is duplicity or [an] overlap, it means there are two offences in one charge. The charge brought by the prosecution has violated the provisions of Section 163 of the CPC," she said.

Car drivers are not "definitely liable" 

After claiming the charges were defective, Datuk Hadhariah made it clear that both Sam and the victims had violated the law and it is the appellant's (Sam) right to know what charges are brought against her.

The judge then said: "We can't say that it is surely the car driver's responsibility whenever there's a fatal accident; this is not the position of the law."

“You are now a free person."

Representing the panel, Datuk Hadhariah expressed their sympathies to the families of the eight victims. However, she emphasised that the decision had to be made as according to the law and proof provided before the court. 

After evaluating the case from every aspect, all three of the panel unanimously ruled in the favour of Sam's appeal and cancelled her six-year jail sentence and RM6,000 fine.

Datuk Hadhariah announced the judgement and ended it with an affirming sentence to Sam: "You are now a free person." 

We are not here to judge whether the judges' decision is right or wrong. But what we are trying to appreciate is the wisdom our high court judges hold. In them, we believed that justice will be served and our law is protected. 

Source: Goody25.com | NST.com.my | Utusan.com.my | TheEdgeMarkets.com | TheBorneoPost.com