The Shah Alam High Court today completed its hearing o­n the application of human rights lawyer P Uthayakumar to strike out a criminal intimidation charge against him.

After hearing submissions from both parties, judge Suriyadi Halim Omar said he would deliver a judgment o­n May 5.

Charge denied

In January, Uthayakumar ( left ) had been charged under section 228 of the Penal Code for contempt of court and under section 506 for criminal intimidation of a chief police inspector.

At the time, the lawyer was representing the family of a youth who had died in police custody. During the inquest last year, he was alleged to have ignored a warning by Sepang magistrate Norazmi Norawi to "keep quiet or get out of the court".

Uthayakumar was also alleged to have said, "You watch out, I will fix you, we'll fix you", to chief inspector G Ponniah who testified at the inquest. Last month, however, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail withdrew the contempt charge.

If found guilty of the intimidation charge, Uthayakumar faces a maximum of six months jail or

a fine, or both.

Submitting today o­n the application to strike out the charge, Uthayakumar's counsel M Manoharan said his client was not happy because o­nly o­ne of the charges had been withdrawn.

He said the intimidation charge showed malice towards Uthayakumar who has been highlighting cases of police brutality including deaths in custody and shooting of suspects.

Manoharan also submitted that his client did not say those words to Ponniah.

"Even if he did, the charge for criminal intimidation cannot stand as Ponniah, a police officer who was wearing a uniform and carrying a gun, would not have been intimidated," Manoharan said.

He added that (any such) remark would have been general in nature and would not indicate clear ill-intent or follow-up action, and thus should not be cause for alarm.

Charge 'groundless'

Manoharan also said he had tried in February to strike out both charges, but that the magistrate had dismissed the application.

"The rejection of our application was not recorded in the notes of proceeding," he complained.

He requested the judge to invoke his power under section 173(G) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to strike out the remaining charge o­n the basis that "it was groundless".

Co-counsel PW Moorthy said the charge against Uthayakumar was lopsided as it was based o­nly o­n Ponniah's report lodged last September.

"But when my client lodged a report to say that Ponniah's report was false, the police did not call him in for further investigation. The following day, he (Uthayakumar) was charged," he said.

He added the police, in investigating Ponniah's report, o­nly called in selected witnesses and did not take statements from over 40 other people present that day, including representatives from non-governmental organisations.

'Not fatal'

Judge Suriyadi then asked deputy public prosecutor Kamarul Hisham Kamarudin if he was aware of any investigation into Uthayakumar's report, to which Kamarul said he could not confirm this.

However, the deputy public prosecutor also pointed out that under section 173(G) of the CPC, a judge can o­nly revise a "finding, order and sentence" - and that this would not apply in Uthayakumar's case because the hearing is o­nly scheduled to begin o­n May 29.

Kamarul also said the charge, even if it lacks the details o­n intimidation allegedly committed by Uthayakumar, was "not fatal" to warrant a dismissal of the charge.

He said in the absence of a trial o­n the charge, the high court would not be able to make a decision to dismiss the charge.

"If the charge is incomplete, the court will usually ask the prosecution to amend the charge. The court cannot summarily dismiss the charge without first hearing the evidence, which is the ingredient to forming the charge. To drop it altogether is a shift (from the common practice)," he said.

He added in the event that a subordinate court has caused a miscarriage of justice because of error and irregularities in a trial, the problem is still "curable" as a higher court can always rectify it.

About 20 people attended the proceeding today in support of Uthayakumar, who is also the pro tem secretary-general of Parti Reformasi Insan Malaysia.

Also present were several observers including Ramdas Tikamdas of the National Human Rights Society, Edmund Bon of the Bar Council's human rights committee and Charles Briefel of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists.