The prima facie decision on the fatal police shooting of teenager Aminulrasyid Amzah faced another delay today as the judge sought more clarifications before giving her decision.

NONE Shah Alam sessions court judge Latifah Mohd Tahar asked both sides to resubmit their evidence and arguments on the firearm from which came the shot that killed Aminulrasyid on April 26 last year.

She also asked for arguments on whether or not the accused, Cpl Jenain Subi ( right ), had indeed intended to kill Aminulrasyid when he shot at the car he was driving.

Latifah fixed Feb 28 to deliver her decision as to whether there is a prima facie case for the 48-year old police officer to answer.

In his re-submission, deputy public prosecutor Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar reiterated the prosecution’s stand that Jenain had shot with intent to kill.

                           

He relied heavily on the testimony of Constable Mohd Izham Mahayuddin that the Iswara driven by the deceased was already swerving and slowing down after the first series of shots.

He also argued that the same was observed by constable Mohd Hafizd Mohd Yusoff, Jenain’s partner driving the patrol car the accused was in and allegedly shot Aminulrasyid from.

He coupled this with testimony by Mohd Azzamuddin Mamat, the passenger in the car driven by the victim, that shots were still fired after the car slowed, prior to it ploughing into a wall.

‘Shots were not to stop car’

The prosecution argued that it is impossible for Jenain not to have observed the same, and his decision to continue firing can only mean he intended to kill the victim.

“This shows that the shots were not to stop the car,” argued Mohd Dusuki.

NONE On whose firearm fired the fatal shot, Dusuki ( right ) conceded that ballistics testing on the projectile failed as the jacketed slug recovered was deformed, but identified as being from a 9mm weapon.

He contends that the timing of the shot and the angle and trajectory of the 9mm slug made it likely it was fired from Jenain’s Heckler & Koch MP5 sub-machine gun of the same caliber.

The prosecution also rubbished defence claims that the presence of shell casings from bullets fired from both Jenain’s and Izham’s weapons shed reasonable doubt as to the fatal slug’s origin.

He cited legal precedent that reasonable doubts must be possible and not just probable, or so remote a possibility that it can be dismissed as it was in the case of the casings, he argued.

               

Mohd Dusuki submitted that the collage of evidence and confluence of testimonies are from witnesses whose credibility remains unscathed throughout cross-examinations by the defence.

‘Credibility of testimony marred’

Almost on cue, the defence then proceeded to tear apart the lynchpin of the prosecution’s case by attacking the testimony of Constable Izham in their re-submission.

       

They labelled him an ‘interested party’, hinting at his culpability, as he also fired shots at the victim’s car and failed to inform fellow officers that the car already slowed down.

“The credibility of his testimony is marred,” said defence counsel Salim Bashir.

The defence then proceeded to argue that Izham’s testimony clashed with that of other officers, pointing out that other cops did not immediately notice that the car had ceased to be a threat.

They argued that as Izham was the only one who saw the car slowing down, others including Jenain could only see the car as a threat and fired shots in the line of duty to disable it, not to kill.

   

Jenain’s lawyers also played up the prosecution’s inability to conclusively identify the firearm which fired the fatal shot and the presence of spent casings from other firearms on the scene.

This, they argued, presented reasonable doubts over the origin of the slug that killed Aminulrasyid and the identity of the shooter.

When lacking conclusive evidence, the defence argued that the cardinal rule of law requires that doubts be made in favour of the accused as it is the duty of the prosecution to dispel such doubts.

Jenain is being prosecuted under section 304(a) of the Penal Code, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder which carries a 30-year jail term and fine if convicted.

Latifah’s postponement was delivered to a packed courtroom full of reporters, observers and family members from both sides, including a deputation of the late Aminulrasyid’s schoolmates.

Also present was N Surendran, the lawyer representing the victim’s family.

VIDEO | 3.44 mins