After having lost his father in an accident a week ago, Ramkarpal Singh was forced to burn the midnight oil with a colleague to draft the petition of appeal to set aside Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II conviction.

His colleague Zaleha Al Hayat, who is also attached with the firm of the late Karpal Singh, filed the petition at 1.40pm at the Federal Court registry.

She said the petition had to be filed by 3pm today, or else, the opposition leader could have landed in prison to serve his five-year sentence.

"We (Ramkarpal and Zaleha) have been working since 6pm yesterday to write the grounds of appeal," she said, adding that it was concluded this afternoon in Kuala Lumpur.

Ramkarpal, who was also involved in the accident that killed his father and the latter's personal aide, immediately left for Penang to attend prayers for Karpal.

Zaleha ( right ) said a copy of the appeal would also be furnished to the Attorney-General's Chambers.

The lawyers were forced to draft the petition of appeal after the Federal Court Registry denied Anwar's application for an extension following his lead counsel Karpal’s death.

Among the 35 grounds stated in the petition of appeal was that the appelate court had erred in concluding that there was penetration.

The petition stated that Hospital Kuala Lumpur doctors, who examined complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, wrote that there was "no conclusive evidence of penetration" in their report.

It also stated that the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate the testimony of the two Australian experts and also Pusrawi local doctor Dr Osman Abdul Hamid who first examined Saiful.

The lawyers also stated that the appellate court, which convicted and sentenced the opposition leader to five years imprisonment last month, was wrong in reversing the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision not to accept evidence from the politician's police cell on the grounds that it was illegally obtained.

Other grounds

Other grounds filed included:

  • The appellate court was biased and there was misdirection in claiming that Anwar's counsel purposely delayed the hearing of the appeal;

 

  • If the appellate court had accepted Dr Osman’s evidence, it would have brought Saiful’s testimony into disrepute;

    •  

  • The trial judge and also at the Court of Appeal should adopt adverse inference against the prosecution’s failure not to call Dr Osman, as he was an important witness for them, being the first to inspect Saiful ( right in picture );

    •  

  • The appellate court misdirected itself in not accepting the testimony of expert witnesses Dr David Wells and Dr Brian McDonald, whereas they are competent and have the necessary qualifications. The court further misdirected itself by calling them armchair experts;

    •   

  • The court should have taken into consideration that there are serious doubts in the results obtained by the local chemists as their analysis may be partial or one-sided when it failed to report certain alleles;

    •  

  • The court also misdirected itself in deciding there was no degradation in the samples retrieved from Saiful’s anus;

    •     

  • The appellate judges misdirected themselves in making adverse comments over Anwar's statement from the dock as it is within his rights. They also made a serious misdirection in deciding that Anwar and other defence witnesses’ testimonies had proven the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt;

    •  

  • The appellate court was wrong in drawing an inference on Anwar for not calling alibi witnesses and this resulted in the judges to become prejudiced against the PKR de facto leader;

    •  

  • There was also serious misdirection when the court accepted investigating officer Supt Jude Blacious Pereira’s evidence, as his application to be an advocate and solicitor was rejected, based on the Suhakam Public Inquiry into the arrest and detention of five lawyers of the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre, that affects his credibility;

    •     

  • There was serious misdirection when the court determined that the DNA of 'Male Y' is that of Anwar, whereas there are doubts in the testimony of the local chemist over this;

    •  

  • Saiful’s evidence was only fabrication which is supported by his delay in lodging a police report two days after the incident and the HKL doctors had written there was no conclusive evidence of penetration. Dr Osman had also testified in his report that "penetration was done by a plastic object".

    • No dates have been fixed yet on when the Federal Court, the highest court in the country, will hear the appeal.