Former Sabah minister unsuccessful in seeking a re-trial for a forgery case charging conviction

In a recent development, Peter, the former Melalap assemblyman, has had his review application rejected by a three-judge panel in Kuala Lumpur. The panel, chaired by Justice Azman Abdullah, made this decision in relation to the case where Peter was convicted of forging a letter from the office of the UMS deputy vice-chancellor.

Peter was sentenced to three years in jail and fined RM50,000 by the sessions court in 2022. He has since paid the fine and is currently serving his sentence. The case dates back to 11 years ago, when Peter was charged in his capacity as managing director of Syarikat Asli Jati Sdn Bhd.

The review application sought to set aside the Court of Appeal's final ruling convicting Peter and ordering a retrial. The application was based on the argument that Peter was deprived of the right to a fair trial due to not being able to cross-examine a prosecution witness, Shukur Din, on the police report.

However, the Court of Appeal panel, which also included Justices Noorin Badarudin and Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz, determined that Peter had failed to meet the legal threshold for a review. This decision was made following the panel's extensive arguments over the police report lodged by Shukur Din last year.

Shukur Din, a prosecution witness, had alleged that a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission investigating officer concocted part of his police report to implicate Peter. However, the court found no grounds to support this claim.

The Court of Appeal granted Peter's application to admit Shukur's police report as additional evidence. However, the full judgment, written by Zaini Mazlan, explains why the fresh evidence did not help to exonerate Peter. The 24-page judgment, made available to parties early this week, does not appear to have made any reference to the fresh evidence admitted in the 16-page broad grounds of judgment.

Peter's lawyer, Haniff Khatri Abdulla, contended that the inclusion of the fresh evidence in the judgment amounted to an afterthought. Despite this, Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, the deputy public prosecutor, responded that the fresh evidence was already thoroughly examined during the appeal.

It is worth noting that the search results do not provide information about which judges sat on the panel that decided Peter's application for review. The Court of Appeal panel delivered its broad oral grounds of judgment on Peter's appeal on March 4.

Peter argued that Shukur's police report exonerated him, and the non-disclosure of the evidence at trial had prejudiced him. However, the court found no merit in these claims, and the review application has been rejected. Peter will continue to serve his sentence as the legal proceedings come to a close.