First time for everything, I guess

Malaysiakini reports today that the prosecution will not be appealing against the acquittal of Abdul Razak Bsginda without his being ordered to enter his defence.

It is reported that DPP Tun Majid Tun Hamzah said that the court had made a finding of fact and he confirmed that the prosecution would not file an appeal.

I’ve just called a few lawyer friends and all have confirmed the same thing : we all cannot recall an instance where there has been an acquittal in a murder trial and the prosecution have not appealed the acquittal.

In fact, when Justice Hamid Embong, then judge of the High Court, acquitted the accused in the trial for the murder of Norita Shamsuddin on 12th August, 2004, without requiring the accused to first enter his defence, the prosecution appealed.

And is not an acquittal, in a murder trial after the close of the prosecution case and without ordering the accused to enter his defence, invariably a finding of law that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case, that finding of law turning on the trial judge’s consideration of the evidence of fact and, where admitted, opinion?

Did not Justice Hamid Embong make several findings of fact before he arrived at his decision, in law, that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case?

So how different is the acquittal in the Razak Baginda case with that of the accused in the Norita case, that one should be appealed and the other not?

Boggles!