Lawyers for detained Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) legal advisor P Uthayakumar today failed in their bid to have him present during his sedition trial at the Kuala Lumpur Session Court.

Justice Sabariah Othman ruled that it was not necessary for Uthayakumar to be brought from the Kamunting detention centre in Perak - where he is being held under the Internal Security Act - for the case.

hindraf probed by police 141008 surendran She said that his lawyers N Surendran and M Manogaran could proceed with the case on his behalf.

Earlier his lawyers, led by Surendran (right), asked for a postponement so that Uthayakumar could be present at the trial.

He also asked the court to ensure that Uthayakumar was brought to the court by the prison authorities and not the police special branch.

The judge also gave her verdict on the legal team's oral application which contended that there was an "element of bias" in the charge sheet and consent form which were signed by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail.

'Charge was groundless'

Manogaran, during the trial last October, cited a court case on Dec 5, 2007 when Uthayakumar and the AG were shouting at one another over a charge of 'attempted murder' levelled against 31 Hindraf supporters who had gathered at the Batu Caves temple grounds the night before a mass rally on Nov 25, 2007.

Uthayakumar's lawyers are claiming that as a result of that incident, Abdul Gani could have acted with bias in preferrring the sedition charge.

Sabariah however ruled that an oral application on the AG’s alleged biasness could not be taken into account, and therefore rejected Manogaran's submission

uthayakumar hindraf taiping hospital 170209 01 Surendran then further submitted a written preliminary objection against Abdul Gani signing the prosecution order against Uthayakumar.

Moreover, he also added that under Section 173(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court may discharge the accused if the charge in found to be groundless.

The defence lawyer added that the charge was groundless because the AG had acted in mala fide when he authorised the consent form.

“The AG also personally appeared to charge the accused... which is an extraordinary circumstance. Since when does the AG himself appears for a Session Court matter?” he exclaimed.

He once again claimed that Abdul Gani could have acted with bias in preferring the charge against Uthayakumar.

Meanwhile deputy public prosecutor Raja Rozela Raja Toran submitted an affidavit containing the AG’s proclamation that he signed the consent form and the charge sheet without any bad intention or grudge towards Uthayakumar.

Furthermore, according to the deputy public prosecutor, the AG made the decision on grounds that the article contained seditious statements and nothing more, and therefore the charge was not groundless.

She also said that the court had no 'inherent jurisdiction' to discharge the case without a hearing as stated under Section 99(a) in the Subordinate Courts Act.

Sabariah fixed May 7 to decide on the objection.

Charged over letter to British PM

p uthayakumar sedition trial 030209 02 Uthayakumar, 46, is charged with publishing a letter with seditious contents on the Police Watch Malaysia website at Menara Mutiara Bangsar, Bangsar between Nov 15 and Dec 8 last year.

The letter dated Nov 15 last year was from Hindraf and addressed to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at No. 10 Downing Street, London.

The charge under the Sedition Act carries a maximum RM5,000 or three years jail, or both, on conviction, with five years jail for a subsequent offence.

Uthayakumar was detained under the ISA on Dec 13, 2007 for his role in Hindraf.

Related report

My 500th day under ISA