Anwar Ibrahim obtained a small victory when the Kuala Lumpur High Court allowed the defence team to obtain the 'pro-forma' document used in examining sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

This follows Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah’s ruling that it would prevent injustice to the defence.

NONE Hospital Kuala Lumpur forensic pathologist Dr Siew Sheue Feng ( right ) had admitted to looking at the document during a recess yesterday.

During the proceedings, Siew had been badgered by senior lawyer Karpal Singh over what he had filled in the form.

While the witness managed to answer some questions, he could not state Saiful’s correct name, his identity card number or the police report number.

All this was done with Siew refusing to refer to the document while on the witness stand. Questioned in court later, he admitted having referred to it during the break.

The pro-forma form is a standard guide that physicians fill when examining a patient who complains of sexual assault.

It is learnt the pro-forma form issued by HKL has 17 pages, which cover details of the patient's medical history.

This is believed to be separate from the medical notes recorded by the doctor.

Anwar wants judge replaced

This morning, Solicitor-General II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden tried to seek clarification on the ruling, but the judge told the prosecution that he has made his decision.

Following a short break, Siew was seen giving the document to Karpal.

Karpal also told the court that a notice of motion had been filed to recuse the judge.

Anwar, in NONE his supporting affidavit, claimed that the judge had made a threat to intimidate him.

Karpal said his client fears a real danger of bias, although Justice Zabidin (left) had withdrawn the statement.

Anwar quoted verbatim the court proceedings which began with Karpal's statement that the judge has not been abiding with the Supreme Court decision that all documents related to expert witnesses - on which the court could form an opinion - should also be provided to the defence.

Judge: What you said can be constituted as contempt.

Karpal: The issue of contempt of court does not arise as I have to ensure the interests of my client.

Judge: The case of (lawyer) Zainur Zakaria is clear.

Karpal: The threat of contempt is unwarranted. You have to look at it objectively. To threaten us at this stage before filing is not right.

Judge: I am not saying contempt.

Karpal: To intimidate counsel is serious matter. To say it is contempt is unwarranted. We have a duty to perform to our client. This threat of contempt Yang Arif should withdraw.

Judge: Okay, I withdraw that.

Karpal: It is not proper for Yang Arif to have said that.

Judge: Okay! Okay! It’s not proper.

Anwar also stressed that his application is based on intimidation made by the judge on his lawyer.

“The right to a fair trial is of course a universal principle,” he said in the affidavit.

Justice Zabidin fixed tomorrow morning to hear the application.