I refer to the Malaysiakini report 6 months' jail, RM3,000 fine for 'cop biting' MP .

Tian Chua was charged in a magistrates court. Before the formal charged was made against him, the investigation officer would in the course of his investigation, have recorded a statement from both the policeman who lodged a report against Tian Chua and a statement given by Tian Chua.

Upon completion of the investigations, a report with its findings would have been submitted to the Attorney-General’s (AG) Chambers for the AG to decide whether to prefer a charge against Tian Chua or not.

In Tian Chua’s case, the AG decided to charge him in court for allegedly biting the arm of a policeman on duty when he stopped Tian Chua’s motorcar on a road leading to Parliament. As much as the policeman was on duty, Tian Chua as a member of Parliament was only carrying out his duty.

Since the policeman was on duty, he is required under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1950 as a public servant to register or record the facts in issue which are relevant to what transpired at the entrance of Parliament House at about 10.45am on Dec 11, 2007.

Therefore, the police book or register or record, whatever it is called, is in itself admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as a relevant fact, at the trial. Whether it was done or not is not reported and is not known, and no presumptions would be drawn.

But if the police book or whatever it is called was not produced, it still does not make much difference as Rosyaidi Anuar, the 21-year-old policeman had given evidence that he had punched Tian Chua in the face.

The prosecution’s cardinal witness was Kons Rosyaidi Anuar and circumstantial evidence was in the form of a police video recording but this video recording did not show the alleged act of biting by Tian Chua. However Kons Rosyaidi Anuar admitted under cross-examination that he did punch Tian Chua in the face.

This was an admission of a fact by the prosecution’s cardinal witness that this policeman did use criminal force on Tian Chua. No medical report was produced at the trial.

So one issue sticks out like a sore thumb and that is, that this young policeman made a most daring public attack upon the liberty of Tian Chua to protect his body.

The magistrate grossly failed to look at the facts and determine what was the mischief but went on an expedition of his own choosing and drew a conclusion which was in gross violation of the of the basic elementary tenets and demands of the rules of natural justice.

The irony of the magistrate’s judgement is that, it states ‘that there is no evidence in court that anyone saw the biting. It is based on circumstantial evidence.’

So here we have a case where the deputy public prosecutor has not established his case beyond reasonable doubt and requires the court to hold Tian Chua responsible for his actions and the magistrate concludes that there is no evidence of the biting. Then on what foundation of the law and on what basis does the issue of ‘circumstantial evidence’ arise?

Based on the above facts and arguments, it is clearly apparent that the magistrate has quite simply made a decision on issues which were not proved in court but out of the figment of his own imagination which is hopeless, baseless and without any foundation in law or in equity.

In conclusion, we all know that the role of the courts above all is to find out the truth based on the evidence that is before the court. The court is required to do justice according to the law.

And since the magistrate has not held the balance between the case brought by the AG against Tian Chua and has drawn a conclusion based on the figment of his own imagination, justice has been denied to Tian Chua and the decision should not be allowed to stand, based on the principle of upholding the rule of law.